Loading...
4641 Rezone 14.94 Acres - 3600 Skyway DriveWS RM _X_ s CITY OF Item No. , A SkNTFORD FLORIDA CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 22.002 JANUARY 10, 2022 AGENDA To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission PREPARED BY: Eileen Hinson, Planning Director SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City Manager SUBJECT: Rezone approximately 14.94 acres from AG, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development to establish the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD, a proposed 85 - unit townhome development including a single commercial outparcel at project address 3600 Skyway Drive. THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER AND, AS SUCH, REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF ALL EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, INVESTIGATIONS, SITE VISITS AND EXPERT OPINIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: ❑ Unify Downtown & the Waterfront ❑ Promote the City's Distinct Culture ❑ Update Regulatory Framework ❑ Redevelop and Revitalize Disadvantaged Communities SYNOPSIS: A request to rezone approximately 14.94 acres from AG, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development to establish the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD, a proposed 85 -unit townhome development including a single commercial outparcel with a project address of 3600 Skyway Drive has been received. The property owners are DP & DP Inc. and Takvorian Properties, LLC. The applicant is Geoff Summit, P.E. of GL Summit Engineering, Inc. who was responsible for completing the CAPP requirement. The Affidavit of Ownership is provided by the applicant is attached. All other information is available in order to ensure that all potential conflicts of interests are capable of being discerned. FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT: Based on the 2020 property tax roll of Seminole County, the parcels had a total assessed value of $650,601. The total tax bill for the four parcels in 2020 was $8,974.78. If the rezoning is approved and subsequently developed, the property will be assessed the City's millage rate for the residential and commercial uses and generate ad valorem and utility revenues for the City accordingly. Page 1 of 9 No additional staffing is anticipated if the Planned Development is approved. BACKGROUND: The approximate 14.94 acre site consisting of four parcels, is located on the south side of East Lake Mary Boulevard at the corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive. The City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 4596 annexing the four parcels in April 2021. The current application proposes to rezone the 14.94 acres to Planned Development and establish the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD, a mixed-use development consisting of an 85 -unit townhome development including a single commercial outparcel fronting Skyway Drive. The applicant completed a modified CAPP process (COVID-19) by mailing a CAPP notification to residences in a 500 foot area on May 20, 2021.One response email was provided and a summary of the CAPP has been provided and is attached. The subject properties are located within sub -area 4 of the 2015 Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint Planning Agreement. An east -west alignment established by Eaglewoods Trail shall serve as a dividing line for residential density within Planning Area 4. Properties to the north of this line shall develop at a maximum of 3.5 units per net buildable acre. Properties lying south of this line and north of Pineway shall develop at a maximum of 2.5 units per net buildable acre. These densities shall not apply to properties currently assigned the County HIP -AP Future Land Use designation. The subject property is north of Eaglewoods Trail, in addition the subject parcel has a Future Land Use designation of Seminole County HIP -AP land use designation. The applicant has a concurrent request to amend the land use to AIC, the equivalent City FLU. AIC is a high-intensity mixed use land use policy for managing lands comprised of the Orlando Sanford International Airport and adjacent lands capable of supporting a variety of residential rental properties and commercial and industrial uses. Properties assigned the Planned Development zoning district are intended for residential and nonresidential uses that utilize flexible and creative site design to achieve a more desirable environment and more efficient land use. Staff has reviewed the requested PD Rezone in relation to the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The allocation of land for mixed-use development including commercial and residential shall be compatible with goals and objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with supportive research and analysis. Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to this application are listed below: Future Land Use Element Objective FLU 1.7. Implement the Future Land Use Map Series. The maximum density and Floor Area Ratio for the AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce is as follows: Land Use Designations Map Symbol Density/Intensity (Max) 10/50 du/acre (MF) I du/acre (SF) Airport Industry and Commerce AIC 0% / 10% threshold 1.0 FAR for Commercial 25% /75% threshold Page 2 of 9 Transportation Policy 2-1.3.5: Assess Traffic Impacts of New Developments. The City shall require the submittal of a traffic impact study for new development that is anticipated to generate at least 500 daily trips, 100 peak -hour trips, or at the discretion of City Staff. A traffic impact study was submitted as part of the PD Rezone request. The intensity of the development, including the commercial and residential components, will be further assessed during engineering review. The adjacent roads are Seminole County right of ways which will require county review and approval for ingress/egress points and necessary improvements. Policy CIE 1.2.1: Require Funding Transportation Fees for New Development. The City shall participate in the Seminole County traffic impact fee program for purposes of assisting the funding of new or improved roadways and intersection improvements required to accommodate traffic impacts of new development. The traffic impact fee program assesses new development a pro -rata share of costs required to fund transportation improvement needs generated by such development. The city will implement this fee program. Infrastructure Policy INF 1.1.2. Maintain Public Facility Concurrency Requirements. A concurrency management system (CMS) shall be maintained and enforced as part of the LDRs for potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management and solid waste. The City's Utility Department tracks water and wastewater capacities for all projects once a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit has been obtained. The available capacityfor a proposed project is verified but will not be reserved until a FDEP permit is obtained. Policy INF 2.42: Require Reclaimed Water Connection. All new development shall be required to hook up to the existing central water and wastewater system and reclaimed water system. Reclaim water is to be provided by the City of Sanford. Recreation Policy REC 1.1.7. Require New Residential Development to Accommodate Recreation. The City shall implement requirements in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) requiring certain residential development to accommodate recreational or other amenities onsite in order to offset impacts of the project on the City's recreation LOS and provide an improvement that contributes to the design of the project. Policy CIE 1.2.3: Require Recreation Impact Fees for New Development. The City shall continue to enforce the City's recreation impact fee which shall require that new development pay a pro - rata for recreational land and facility needs generated by the respective developments. The city will implement this impact fee. Capital Improvements Policy CIE 1.4.1: Maintain LOS Standards. In order to ensure that future development maintained the adopted LOS standards, the City shall issue no development order or permit for development unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the adopted LOS standards for public facilities, including roads, water and wastewater services, drainage, solid Page 3 of 9 waste, public school and recreation will be maintained and that the improvement needs shall be planned. The City's Utility Department tracks water and wastewater capacities for all projects once a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit has been obtained. The available capacity for a proposed project is verified but will not be reserved until a FDEP permit is obtained. In addition, Seminole County Public Schools tracks school capacity through a Letter of Determination. The proposed PD, if approved, would promote mixed-use centers which is an initiative associated with the strategic priority listed as "Update Regulatory Framework" in the Imagine Sanford strategic plan adopted by the City Commission. The Parkview Place Phase 2 PD will create a mixed-use project that provides a different housing option in proximity to the airport as well as opportunity for neighborhood supportive commercial uses. Policy CIE 1.2.4: Require Water and Wastewater Impact Fees far New Development. The City shall continue assessing impact fees from new development for water and wastewater facility improvements necessitated by the respective development. The Land Development Regulations (LDRs) shall continue to incorporate performance criteria assuring that all new development provide water and wastewater improvements to meet the adopted LOS standards. The city will collect this impact fee. Policy CIE 1.2.6: Collect School Impact Fees. The City shall continue to collect impact fees imposed by the School Board to fund public school facility needs generated by new development. The city will collect this impact fee. Policy FLU 1.9.1 Establish performance criteria for development within the AIC. The following criteria shall be adhered to for all development within the AIC District. a. The Airport Industry and Commerce designation is intended to encourage the expansion of industrial land and provide additional areas for mixed-use development that would be compatible with airport operations. b. The majority of such land is located in airport property and is subject to the Airport Master Plan. Certain properties, primarily east of Beardall Avenue, are located in the 2009 noise zone. c. The Orlando -Sanford Airport shall develop according to the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP), adopted by reference herein. d. Upon annexation of lands that are currently within the jurisdiction of Seminole County and are included in the ALP, the lands will be automatically given the land use designation of Airport Industry Commerce and a zoning designation consistent with the existing zoning of the Airport. e. The land use mix in the AIC is intended to provide a full range of urban services and facilities including: • Industrial and Business Parks; • Office Complexes; • Commercial and retail developments; • Service and hotel uses; and • Medium to high density multifamily residential developments, where located in accordance with those requirements contained within this policy. f. The maximum intensity of industrial and commercial development measured as floor area is 1.0. The maximum intensity for residential uses is 50 units per acre, with a minimum density of 10 units per acre, where compatible with adjacent uses. Distribution of specific densities and intensities for this district shall be in accordance with Table FLU -2 of this Element. Page 4 of 9 g. The Development Review Team, the Airport Zoning Board and the Airport Design Review Team shall review development included in the ALP for compliance with the Sanford LDRs. Development contemplated by the ALP shall comply with all LDRs included, but not limited to, setbacks, landscaping, parking, drainage and floor area ratios except where such regulations conflict with Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rules and regulations. h. Development within the AIC designated area must be developed as a Planned Development. As a PD, all new development shall be required to address infrastructure needs, provision of services, development phasing, development intensity and land use compatibility as part of an integrated design scheme which includes very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development impacts. i. The location of future high density residential developments shall comply with guidelines issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation relating II COMMUNITY GROWTH II - 22 to airport compatible uses, noise zones, approach zones and other safety measures. j. Future high and medium density residential developments shall occur outside the 60 DNL (day/night sound level) noise contours. k. Residential developments shall be prohibited within 300 feet of the centerline of airport runways. 1. PD proposals in the AIC area will be the subject of negotiated development agreements. No development order shall be granted prior to City approval of the development agreement. in. Developments within the AIC that exist prior to the adoption of this Plan will be "grandfathered". However, all new development in the Airport Industry and Commerce Area outside the Airport boundaries shall incorporate those performance criteria established under Policy FLU 1.1.7, as well as those criteria listed below: • Narrative and graphic information required for review of rezoning petitions, for site plan review, and other related procedural requirements; • Impact analysis, including plans for managing any potential impacts on air operations; • Noise impact analysis, including required sound insulation in areas within the airport impact noise zones; • Requirements for controlled access and internal circulation, including provisions for cross access easements, and joint use of driveways; • Requirements for perimeter buffer yards; • Management framework for encouraging development of strategically planned subcenters of commerce and industry; • Dedication of necessary rights-of-way; and • Use of pedestrian and mass transit facilities to reduce vehicle trips. Staff finds that the Parkview Place Phase 2 Planned Development and associated master plan are consistent with the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has not reviewed the staff report and the specific analysis provided by City staff, but has noted the following: Section 166.033, Florida Statutes, as amended in the recent Legislative Session, in Chapter 2021-224, Laws of Florida (deriving from Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1059) provides as follows (please note emphasized text): "(1) When reviewing an application for a development permit that is certified by a professional listed in s. 403.0877, a municipality may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing. Before Page 5 of 9 a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. Except as provided in subsection (4), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (2) (a) When a municipality denies an application for a development permit, the municipality shall eive written notice to the applicant. The notice must include a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial of the permit. (b) If a municipality makes a request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 30 days after receiving the additional information. (c) If a municipality makes a second request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 10 days after receiving the additional information. (d) Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. If a municipality makes a third request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must deem the application complete within 10 days after receiving the additional information or proceed to process the application for approval or denial unless the applicant waived the municipality's limitation in writing as described in paragraph (a). (e) Except as provided in subsection (5), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (3) As used in this section, the term "development permit" has the same meaning as in s. 163.3164, but does not include building permits. (4) For any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012, a municipality may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the municipal action on the local development permit. (5) Issuance of a development permit by a municipality does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of development permits and shall include a permit condition Page 6 of 9 that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. (6) This section does not prohibit a municipality from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply." The above -referenced definition of the term "development permit" is as follows: "(16) 'Development permit' includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land." (Section 163.3164(16), Florida Statutes). Thus, if this application is denied, a denial development order must be issued which must cite to the applicable portions of each ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority supporting the denial of the application. For example, if a goal, objective or policy of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan were to be the basis for a denial, then such goal, objective or policy must be part of the motion proposing the denial. A denial development order would be drafted to implement the actions of the City Commission in the event of such occurrence. Accordingly, any motion to deny must state, with particularity, the basis for the proposed denial. The term "development order" is defined as follows and, as can be seen, refers to the "granting, denying, or granting with conditions [of] an application": "(15) `Development order' means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit." (Section 163.3164(15), Florida Statutes). The City Commission moved to continue the first reading of Ordinance No. 4641 on November 8, 2021 to December 13, 2021. The City Clerk published notice of the 2nd Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on December 1, 2021. The City Commission approved Ordinance No. 4641, on first reading on December 13, 2021, with the conditions to include an extra 30 foot buffer along the Hunter's property to Kentucky Square. RECOMMENDATION: On October 21, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission, upon the recommendation of staff, recommended the City Commission approve the request to Rezone approximately 14.69 acres from AG, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development to establish the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD, a proposed 85 -unit townhome development including a commercial outparcel with a project address of 3600 Skyway Drive based on consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following conditions should be considered to accompany any approval in an associated Development Order: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) of the City of Sanford, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. Page 7 of 9 2. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan, dated July 7, 2021 as revised per City comments, any required elements missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan shall comply with the City's LDR. 3. The commercial uses allowed within the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD shall be limited to the uses permitted by right under the GC -2, General Commercial, zoning classification as set forth in the City's Land Development Regulations. Those uses requiring Conditional Use approval or special exception shall be subject to the process established in the City's Land Development Regulations. 4. Vehicle Dealer Sales as defined in the City's Land Development Regulations shall be prohibited and unlawful within the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD. 5. A decorative and functional fountain shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. 6. A dog walk area with waste collection receptacles shall be provided in each residential community as determined by the City. 7. The property owner shall coordinate with LYNX to determine the possible addition of a bus stop and shelter and/or the extension of bus or transit services to the site; provided, however, that this condition shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 8. A preliminary subdivision plan and subdivision improvement plan shall be submitted and subject to approval by the City with all construction activity being subject to approval by the City, and a subsequent subdivision plat being reviewed, approved and recorded, in any certificates of occupancy. 9. The property owner shall formulate and memorialize with staff a document of equal dignity herewith creating an enhanced comprehensive landscape plan throughout the development, including the commercial and residential components, buffers along E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Pine Way; provided, however, that any dispute shall be resolved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a public hearing, by means of a development order relating thereto. 10. The Owner shall install a minimum of 5 -foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the streets. 11. A School Capacity Availability Letter of Determination letter shall be required from the Seminole County School District prior to the recording of the final plat. 12. Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Airport, the developer shall file an FAA Form 7460 that should be returned and provided to the City of Sanford and Orlando - Sanford International Airport. 13. By adoption of this ordinance and execution of the accompanying development order, the Property Owner hereby agrees to record an airport avigation easement in a form acceptable to the City if the City determines that such easement is required. Additionally, all sales documents, declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions and instruments of conveyance including, but not limited to residential leases, shall disclose the likelihood of resulting noise from proximate aviation uses. 14. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall comply with: a. The Townhome Design Guidelines within Schedule E of the City's LDR. b. Tree mitigation per Section 4.2 Criteria For Tree Removal, Replacement And Relocation. c. All setback and buffer requirements set forth in the Sanford — Seminole County JPA, as they apply to this project. d. All commercial elements of the development shall be in accordance with Schedule G — Architectural Design Standards, of the City's Land Development Regulations as defined therein. Modifications to the PD may be requested only if these cannot be met. Page 8 of 9 e. Light source setback for site lighting shall be no less than 75 percent the width of the buffers identified on the PD Master Plan. 15. If City staff and the Property Owner are unable to agree to the details of this Development Order in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Board, whichever is appropriate, for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4641, with the conditions to include an extra 30 foot buffer along the Hunter's property to Kentucky Square." Attachments: Project Information Sheet Site Zoning Map Site Aerial Map Affidavit of Ownership Capp Summary Traffic Impact Analysis Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan dated July 1, 2021 Ordinance No. 4641 TADevelopment Review\03-Land Development\20210600 Skyway Drive\CC\CC Memo - 3600 Skyway Drive Rezone.docx Page 9 of 9 Ordinance No. 2021-4641 An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida relating to the rezoning of approximately 14.94 acres of real property located at 3600 Skyway Drive (Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057A, 03-20- 31-5AY-0000-05713, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-064A and 03-20- 31-5AY-0000-00640) to create the Parkview Place Phase 2 Planned Development (PD) (map of the property attached); rezoning the property to a PD, zoning districticlassification master plan; providing for approval of the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan; providing for the taking of implementing administrative actions; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for non -codification and providing for an effective date. Whereas, DP & DP Inc. and Takvorian Properties, LLC are the owners of the property which is the subject of this Ordinance (Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03- 20-31-5AY-0000-057A, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0576, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-064A and 03- 20-31-5AY-0000-00640) as assigned by the Seminole County Property Appraiser); and Whereas, the subject real property (a site 14.94 acres in size) is located at the south side of East Lake Mary Boulevard at the corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive and is addressed as 3600 Skyway Drive; and Whereas, the subject real property is located within sub -area 4 of the 2015 Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint Planning Agreement; and Whereas, the property owners of the property which is the subject of this Ordinance are further identified as follows: DP & DP Inc. is a Florida corporation with headquarters in Sanford, whose directors are Deonarine Persaud and Dhanmattee Persaud, and (2). Takvorian Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, headquartered in New Jersey, whose managers are Ann Takvorian and S. Theodore Takvorian; and __1IPage Whereas Mr. Geoff Summit, P.E. of GL Summit Engineering, Inc. is serving as the applicant and representative of the property owner; and Whereas, on April 11, 2021, the City Commission enacted Ordinance Number 4596 to annex the property into the City Limits of the City; and Whereas, a modified Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) process adhering to the requirements of the City has been accomplished by Mr. Summit to the satisfaction of the City; and Whereas, the real property which is the subject of this Ordinance was assigned the County's HIP -AP, High Intensity Planned Development —Airport,, land use designations prior to annexation of the subject real property which land use designation was modified to the City's AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce, land use designation by means of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce, land use designation implements a high-intensity mixed use policy for managing lands comprised of the Orlando Sanford International Airport and adjacent lands capable of supporting a variety of residential rental properties and commercial and industrial uses with properties that are assigned the Planned Development (PD) zoning district/classification being intended for residential and nonresidential uses that utilize flexible and creative site design to achieve a more desirable environment and more efficient land use; and Whereas, the property owners are requesting that the subject property be rezoned from Seminole County's A-1, Agriculture, to the City of Sanford's PD, Planned Development, zoning district/classification in order to create the Parkview Place Phase 2 IPa9e 2 PD and City staff has reviewed the requested PD Rezone in relation to the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the allocation of land for mixed-use development including commercial and residential are compatible with goals and objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the property owners are proposing to construct an 85 -unit townhome development including a single commercial outparcel on the subject property; and Whereas, on October 21, 2021, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Commission approve this Ordinance; and Whereas, this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the home rule powers of the City of Sanford as set forth at Article VIII, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Florida; Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, and other applicable controlling law; and Whereas, the City Commission of the City of Sanford has taken all actions relating to the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD rezoning action set forth herein in accordance with the requirements and procedures mandated by State law. Now, therefore, be in enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida. Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. (a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and incorporates into this Ordinance, as legislative findings and intent, the above recitals (whereas clauses). (b). The approval set forth in this Ordinance is subject to the specific conditions that are set forth subsequently in this Ordinance and the property owners have agreed that no requirement herein lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the City seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. Section 2. Rezoning of real property/implementing actions; Parkview Place Phase 2 PD. (a), Upon enactment of this Ordinance the property, as depicted in the map attached to this Ordinance shall be rezoned from the zoning classification resulting from a separate and distinct Parkview Place Phase 2 PD consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. (b). The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to formalize approval of the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD rezoning action set forth herein action taken herein with regard to the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD and to revise and amend the Official Zoning Map or Maps of the City of Sanford as may be appropriate to accomplish the action taken in this Ordinance. (c). The conditions to be incorporated into the pertinent development order relating to the action taken in this Ordinance include the following: (1). Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the City's LDRs, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. (2). All development shall be consistent with the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan, revision dated July 7, 2021, unless otherwise specifically set forth in any associated development order; provided, however, that all subsequent development orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. 4 IPag e (3). Unless specifically requested and approved on the referenced Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan shall comply with the City's LDRs. (4). The commercial uses allowed within the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD shall be limited to the uses permitted by right under the GC -2, General Commercial, zoning classification/district as set forth in the City's LDRs with those uses requiring conditional use approval or special exception shall being subject to the process established in the City's LDRs. (5). Vehicle dealer sales as defined in the City's LDRs are prohibited and unlawful within the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD. (6). A decorative and functional fountain shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. (7). A dog walk area with waste collection receptacles shall be provided in each residential community as determined by the City. (8). The property owner shall coordinate with LYNX to determine the possible addition of a bus stop and shelter and/or the extension of bus or transit services to the site; provided, however, that this condition shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (9). A preliminary subdivision plan and subdivision improvement plan shall be submitted and subject to approval by the City with all construction activity being subject to approval by the City, and a subsequent subdivision plat being reviewed, approved and recorded, in any certificates of occupancy. (10). The property owner shall formulate and memorialize with staff a document of equal dignity herewith, as approved by the City Attorney, creating an enhanced comprehensive landscape plan throughout the development, including the commercial and residential components, buffers along East Lake Mary Boulevard and Pine Way. (11). The property owner shall install sidewalks on both sides of the streets which are a minimum of 5' in width. (12). A School Capacity Availability Letter of Determination letter shall be required from the Seminole County School District prior to the recording of the final plat. (13). Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Orlando Sanford International Airport, the property owner shall file a Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460 that with the City and with the Sanford Airport Authority. (14). The property owner shall record an airport avigation easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, if the City determines that such easement is required. Additionally, all sales documents, declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions and instruments of _ 6lPage conveyance including, but not limited to residential leases, shall disclose the likelihood of resulting noise from proximate aviation uses. (15). Unless specifically requested and approved on the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan or the associated PD Development Agreement, all development shall comply with: (a). The Townhome Design Guidelines within Schedule "E" of the City's LDRs. (b). Tree mitigation in accordance with Section 4.2, Criteria For Tree Removal, Replacement And Relocation, of the City's LDRs; to the extent authorized by controlling State law. (c). All setback and buffer requirements set forth in the aforementioned City/Seminole County JPA, as they apply to this PD project. (d). All commercial elements of the development shall be in accordance with Schedule "G", Architectural Design Standards, of the City's LDRs. Modifications to the Parkview Place Phase 2 Master Plan may be requested only if these requirements cannot be met. (e). Light source setback for site lighting shall be no less than 75% the width of the buffers identified on the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master Plan. (16). If City staff and the property owners are unable to agree to 7 IPa9e Plan. the details of this Ordinance and its implementing development order in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. Section 3. Incorporation of map and Parkview Place Phase 2 PD Master The map attached to this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed and incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance amending the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD. Section 4. Conflicts. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. City staff shall harmonize the approval and actions set forth herein together which those taken relative to the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD with all past actions of the City relative to the property being hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional. Section 6. Non -codification; Implementation. (a). This Ordinance shall not be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford or the Land Development Code of the City of Sanford; provided, however, that __ 81Page the actions taken herein shall be depicted on the zoning maps of the City of Sanford by the City Manager, or designee. (b). The City Manager, or designee, shall implement the provisions of this Ordinance by means of a non -statutory development agreement which shall be executed by the property owners, or their successor(s) in interest within 60 days of the effective date of this Ordinance or the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD property's zoning classification shall revert to an un -zoned property status. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon enactment. Passed and adopted this 10th day of January, 2022. Attest: 0', old (',I fit r4i Traci Houchin, MMC, F­6RM", City Clerk Approved as to form ancfIegal sufficiency. L. Colbert, Cityttollney xo�j� ,�-t A City Commissionthe City of Sanford, Florida /f/ Mayor 91P@ge PROJECT INFORMATION p- 3600 SKYWAY DRIVE REZONE Requested Action: Rezone approximately 14.94 acres from AG, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development to establish the Parkview Place Phase 2 PD, a proposed 85 -unit townhome development including a single commercial outparcel. Existing Uses: Vacant Project Address: 3600 Skyway Drive Current Zoning: AG, Agriculture Tax Parcel Numbers: 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057A, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057B, 03-20-31-5AY-064A, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-00640 Site Area: 14.94 acres Property Owners: Takvorian Properties, LLC 26 Bridge Street Hackensack, New Jersey, 07601-7018 DP & DP INC 3590 Skyway Drive Sanford, Florida, 32773-9502 Applicant/Agent: Geoff Summit, P.E. — GL Summit Engineering, Inc. 3667 Simonton Place Lake Mary, Florida, 32746 CAPP Meeting: A Modified CAPP letter (COVID-19) to residences in a 500 foot radius was mailed on May 20, 2021. A CAPP summary is attached. Commission District: District 1 — Sheena Britton Seminole County District 1 — Jay Zembower COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW Planning staff has reviewed the request and has determined the use and proposed improvements to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use: AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce Existing Land Use: HIP -AP, High Intensity Planned Development Surrounding Uses and Zoning: Uses North Sanford Army Reserve Center South Vacant East Residential PD West Residential Single Family ZoninJ4 AG, Agricultural A-1, Agricultural (Seminole County) PD, Planned Development (Seminole County) HIPAP, Agricultural (Seminole County) Page 1 of 2 CONCURRENCY Concurrency is a finding that public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are available, or will be made available, concurrent with the impacts of the development. The concurrency facilities evaluated by the City of Sanford include the following: Drainage: The stormwater system will be designed to meet the City of Sanford and SJRWMD requirements. Roadways: The average daily trips estimated for the overall project is 1,693 trips with 116 PM peak hour trips. A traffic impact analysis was completed June 2021. Water: Water services will be provided by the City of Sanford. Sewer: Sewer services will be provided by the City of Sanford. LOS Standard Proposed Overall Demand Facility Capacity** Potable Water: 144 gal/capita/day 35,900 gals/day* 9.02 MGD (CUP Capacity) Sanitary Sewer: 132 gal/capita/day 47,400 gals/day* 9.3 MGD Solid Waste: 2.46 lbs/capita/day No Data Provided 21.5 million tons The City's Utility Department tracks water and wastewater capacities for all projects once a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit has been obtained. The available capacity for a proposed project is verified but will not be reserved until a FDEP permit is obtained. Below is a breakdown provided by the City of Sanford Utility Department for current usage within the City: Potable Water Sanitary Sewer Recorded 3 -month Average daily flow: - 7.08 MGD Recorded 12 -month Average daily flow: 7.56 MGD - Projects with FDEP permits (not in service): 0.78 MGD 1.044 MGD As provided by the applicant. ** As provided by the City of Sanford's Utility Department. (CUP — Consumptive Use Permit) TADevelopment Review\03-Land Development\2021\3600 Skyway Drive\PZC\Project Info Sheet • 3600 Skyway Drive -Rezone 4B.doc Page 2 of 2 Zoning AG PRO PD RI -1 Site 3600 Skyway Drive Parcel No: 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057A 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057B 03-20-31-5AY 0000-0640 03-20-31-5AY-0000-064A Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: Ownership I DP & DP INC Tax Parcel Number(s): , hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057A; 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0578 Address of Property: Skyway Drive Sanford, FL 32773 for which this Planned Development application is submitted to the City of Sanford. II. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted. I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. In authorizing the agent named below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information contained in the application is accurate and complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (Print): G L Summitt Engineering, Inc. Agent Address: 3667 Simonton Place Lake Mary, FL 32746 Email: geoff@glseng.com Phone: 407-323-0705 Signature: III. Notice to Owner Fax: A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require a new affidavit, If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (i.e.: limited to obtaining a certificate of concurrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity is a (check one) ❑ Individual ❑ Corporation o Land Trust o Partnership o Limited Liability Company ❑ Other (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and address. 2. For each corporation, list the name, address, and title of each officer; the name and address of each director of the corporation; and the name and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. In the case of a trust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage of interest of each beneficiary. If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: 4. For partnerships, including limited partnerships, list the name and address nfeach principal inthe partnership, including general or limited partners. If any partner is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above, 5. For each limited IiabilitV company, Ng the namn, address, and UUa of each manager or managing member and the name and address of each additional member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest. |fany member with two percent (2%)or more membership intommt, manager, or managing member is a ooqmmUon, trust orpartnership, please provide the information required inparagraphs 2.3and/or 4above. Name ofLLC: 6. In the circumstances of contract for purchase, list the name and address of each contract purchaoar. If the purchaser is o corporation, trust, partnership, or LLC, provide the information required for those entities in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 above. Name ofPurchaser: Date of Contract: NAME TITLE/OFFICE/TRUSTEE OR BENEFICIARY ADDRESS % OF INTEREST (Use additional sheets for more space.) 7. Aetoany type of owner referred to above, achange of ownership occurring subsequent tothe execution of this document, shall be disclosed |nwriting tothe City prior toany action being taken by the City as tothe matter relative to which this document pertains. 8. | affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable inquiry. I understand that any failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject mzone, future land use amendment, special oxoephon, or variance involved with this Application to become void orfor the submission for procurement activity to be non- responsive. | certify that | am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant orVendor to the disclosures herein. bat6 Owner, Agent, Ap�licant Signature STATE OFFLORIDA COUNTY OFSEN|NOLE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thisd officer duly authorized to administer oaths andteke AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: I. Ownership 1. PERSAUD, DEONARINE & PERSAUD, DHANMATTEE hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: Tax Parcel Number(s): 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057D (a portion of) Address of Property: Skyway Drive Sanford, FL 32773 for which this Planned Development application is submitted to the City of Sanford. Il. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted, I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. In authorizing the agent named below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information contained in the application is accurate and complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (Print): G L Summitt Engineering, Inc. Agent Address: 3667 Simonton Place Lake Mary, FL 32746 Email: geoff@glseng.com III. Notice to Owner Signature: Phone: 407-323-0705 Fax: A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require a new affidavit. If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (i.e.: limited to obtaining a certificate of concurrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity is a (check one) ❑ Individual ❑ Corporation ❑ Land Trust ❑ Partnership ❑ Limited Liability Company ❑ Other (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and address. 2. For each corporation, list the name, address, and title of each officer; the name and address of each director of the corporation; and the name and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. In the case of a trust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage of interest of each beneficiary. If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: , u � AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: I. Ownership 1. PERSAUD, DEONARINE & PERSAUD, DHANMATTEE hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: Tax Parcel Number(s): 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057D (a portion of) Address of Property: Skyway Drive Sanford, FL 32773 for which this Planned Development application is submitted to the City of Sanford. Il. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted, I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. In authorizing the agent named below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information contained in the application is accurate and complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (Print): G L Summitt Engineering, Inc. Agent Address: 3667 Simonton Place Lake Mary, FL 32746 Email: geoff@glseng.com III. Notice to Owner Signature: Phone: 407-323-0705 Fax: A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require a new affidavit. If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (i.e.: limited to obtaining a certificate of concurrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity is a (check one) ❑ Individual ❑ Corporation ❑ Land Trust ❑ Partnership ❑ Limited Liability Company ❑ Other (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and address. 2. For each corporation, list the name, address, and title of each officer; the name and address of each director of the corporation; and the name and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. In the case of a trust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage of interest of each beneficiary. If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: 4. For partnerships, including limited partnerships, list the name and address of each principal in the partnership, including general or limited partners. If any partner is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. 5. For each limited liability company, list the namn, address, and UUa of each manager or managing member; and the name and address of each additional member with two percent (2%)mmore membership interest. |[ any member with two percent (2%)or more membership interest, manager, or managing member is a oorpomUnn, trust or partnership, please provide the information required inparagraphs 2.3and/or 4above. Name ofLLC: 6\ In the circumstances of contract for purchase, list the name and address of each contract purchaser. If the purchaser is o corporation, trust, partnership, or LLC, provide the information required for those entities in paragraphs 2, 3. 4 and/or 5 above. Name ofPurchaser: Date of Contract: NAME TITLE/OFFICEITRUSTEE OR BENEFICIARY ADDRESS % OF INTEREST (Use additional sheets for more space.) 7. As to any type of owner referred to above, a change of ownership occurring subsequent to the execution of this document, shall be disclosed in writing to the City prior to any action being taken by the City as to the matter relative to which this document pertains. 8. | affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable inquhy. | understand that any failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject rezone, future land use amendment, special excepUnn, or variance involved with this Application to become void orfor the submission for procurement activity to be non- responsive. I certify that I am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures humin. Date Owner, Ageni, Ap"Plicant Signature STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SEMINOLE | HEREBY CERTIFY that this dpy, before me, an officer duly authorizedtoadminister oaths and take AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: 1. Ownership Tax Parcel Number(s): '^~~~/~^~~ Address ufProperty: Skyway for which this Planned Development application issubmitted tothe City ofSanford. 11. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted, I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. In authorizing the agent named below to represent ma, or my company, | attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information contained in the application is aununaVa and complete 0othe best ofmypersonal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (phnt): G LSummiV Engineering, Inc. Agent Address: 3667 Simonton p|aua Lake K4ary, FL 32740 Email: Qeoff@gbeng.cmm Ill. Notice to Owner Signature: Phone: 407-323'0705 Fax: A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require a new affidavit.If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. Uthe Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (i.e.: limited to obtaining a certificate of conCUrrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity is a (check one) o|ndkjdua| oCorponaUun oLand Trust oPortnership aLimited Liability Company oOther (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and 2 For each corporation, list the nome, address, and title of each officer, the name and address of each director of the corporation; and the name and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation,ShamkoNena need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. |nthe case ofotrust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trustand the percentage ofinterest ofeach beneficiary. If any trustee cvbeneficiary ofetrust isocorporation, please provide the information required inparagraph 2above. Name of Trust: 4. For partnerships, including limited partnerships, list the name and address of each principal in the partnership, including general or limited partners. If any partner is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. 5. For each list the name, addmou, and title ufeach manager ormanaging member; and the name and oddeao of each additional member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest. If any member with two penmrd (2,&) or more membership in\emat, manager, or managing member is a corponeUmn, trust orpartnership, please provide the information required inparagraphs 2.3and/or 4above. Name of LLC: Takvofian Properlios, LLC tL In the circumstances of contract for purchase, list the name and address of each contract pumhaomr, If the purchaser is a corporation, trust, partnership, or LLC, provide the information required for those entities in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 above. Name ufPurchaser: Toll Bros.Inc. Date of Contract: November 11, 2020 NAME TITLE/OFFICErTRUSTEE OR BENEFICIARY ADDRESS % OF INTEREST S. Theodore Takvorian Manager 26 Bridge Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601 50% Ann Takvorian Manager 26 Bridge Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601 50% (Use additional sheets for more space.) 7. As to any type of owner referred to above, a change of ownership occurring subsequent to the execution of this document, shall be disclosed in writing to the City prior to any action being taken by the City as to the matter relative to which this dOCLIment pertains. 8. | affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable inquiry. I understand that any failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject mzone, future land use amendment, special excopUon, or variance involved with this Application to become void orfor the submission for procurement activity 0o be non- responsive. | certify that | am |oOaUy authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant orVendor 10 the disclosures herein. May 27, 2021 Date STATE OFFLORIDA COUNTY OFGEM|NOLE /Owner, Agent, Appficant Signature |HEREBYC ed to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeare d who produced as identification ,and acknowledged be before me, by. by means of Wphysical presence 2020, the said person did take an oath and was first duly sworn by me, 0 as read the foregoing and that the statements and allegations contained WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last Notary Public; State (Affix Notarial S al Printed Nan V� Affidavit of Ownership - February 2020 this 91 day of .2021 myc ?1IRES; Docember 16, 2022 June 29"', 2021 Ms. Eileen Hinson, AICP Development Services Manager City of Sanford Planning and Development Services 300 N. Park Ave. Sanford, FL 32771 RE: Parkview Preserve Phase 2 PD Rezone CAPP Summary Dear Ms. Hinson, SUMMITT ENGINEERING INC This letter shall serve as our Final Report under the modified CAPP for the proposed PD Rezoning Application for the parcels listed above. A letter explaining the proposed development with the subject parcels was mailed via U.S. Postal Certified Mail on May 20th, 2021, to the affected property owners via a list created from the Seminole County Property Appraiser's website. A copy of the mailer is attached to this letter along with the list of affected property owners for your reference. To date we have received feedback from one affected property owner. On June 26`x', 2021, we received an e- mail from Katherine and Robert Hunter who reside at 3730 Kentucky St. The Hunter's stated that they disagree with the rezoning due to the proposed density and suggest that any proposed density should not exceed 3.5 du/ac. The Hunter's are also concerned by the potential drainage issues associated with work adjacent to the drainage swales and ditches that serve Skyway and Kentucky. The Hunter's also asked that more of a buffer be provided between the proposed townhomes and their property. If you have any questions concerning the mailer or the response that was received, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Geoffrey L. Summitt, P.E. President e': (407) 323-0705 12i: (407) 992-8650 3667 Simonton Place www.glseng.com Civil Engineering, Planning & Project Management Lake Mary, FL 32746 May 20"', 2021 ENGINEERING INC RE: Park View Place (aka Skyway Drive) PD Rezone Application Community Awareness and Participation Notification Dear Affected Property Owner, I am writing to inform you of a Rezoning Application that is pending submittal to the City of Sanford for the property located southwest corner of Skyway Drive and Lake Mary Blvd. The boundary is shown in red below. The Rezoning Application is being processed to set development standards for the property consisting of a commercial parcel along Lake Mary Blvd and townhomes within the remaining southern portion. Seminole County Property Appraiser In addition, a copy of the conceptual site plan is also attached for reference. #°": (407) 323-0705 f'5: (407) 992-8650 3667 Simonton Place www.glseng.com Civil Engineering, Planning & Project Management Lake Mary, FL 32746 Due to the Covid-19 virus, we are asking that if you have any questions or comments, please email Geoffrey Sum mitt at geoff@gIseng.Lorn with any correspondence or contact us directly at (407) 323-0705. G L Summitt Engineering. would like to address concerns or comments that you may have regarding the PD Rezoning Application. Sincerely, Geoffrey LSummbt P.E. President, #58775 G LSummitt Engineering, Inc. e': (407) 323-0705 3667�mmmnnN�e (407) 992-8650 ���wwwg|sengzmm Civil Engineering, Planning & Project Management Lake Mary, FL 32746 ACEVEDO, REINALDO R& PEDROZA, ADEBIYI, JAMES A& MARSHA N AIRSAN INVESTMENTS LLC YARITZA L M 3656 VOYAGER LN PO BOX 941618 3660 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 MAITLAND, FL 32794 SANFORD, FL 32773 AYBAR, WILLIAM R& YENNY 3964 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 CASTANO, JULIAN A JR.& COREA, CAGNEY M 3640 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 CIRINO PIZARRO, HECTOR M& DEL VALLE, MELISSA E 3652 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 CSX TRANSPORTATION 500 WATER ST JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 DE JESUS, DENELL R S& DE JESUS, MALRENI A & 3812 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 DP & DP INC 3590 SKYWAY DR SANFORD, FL 32773 ESCALERA PIZARRO, YADIEL A& TINOCO, JOANNA L 3979 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 FORNASIER, ALFREDO B& INDALECIA 1750 S CHICKASAW TRL ORLANDO, FL 32825 BUILDING HOPESKYWAY DRIVE LLC 910 17TH ST NW#1100 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 CASTILLO, JAEL 3939 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 CIUDAD, ALEXANDER& DARLIN 3832 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 DAVIS, JEFFERSON B JR 3645 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 DEAKIN, PATRICIA M 3800 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 DP & DP INC 3590 SKYWAY DR SANFORD, FL 32773 ESTRADA MARINO, ANGELA M 3609 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 FRONHEISER, KRISTINA 0& JOSHUA R 3661 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 CANADA, SHAWN E& CANADA, BRETT E 3710 KENTUCKY ST SANFORD, FL 32773 CASTRO VIDOT, BRIAN 282 RED POPPY CT LONGWOOD, FL 32750 COX, DANIEL E& VALE NTINA H 3839 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 DE GUZMAN, MA CRISTINA A 3828 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 DINH, ANHTUAN Q 3611 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 DUKAS, PETER J 3951 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 FLOWERS, BRANDON L 3620 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 GILL, THOMAS G& CAROLE A 3612 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 GREENE, JUANNE V HFB KENTUCKY SQUARE LLC HOSSAN, MD S &FARZANA, FATEMA H 3604 VOYAGER LN 605 COMMONWEALTH AVE 3827 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 ORLANDO, FL 32803 SANFORD, FL 32773 HUNTER, ROBERT G& KATHERINE N JONES, RYAN T &YURCHICK, KIMBERLY KHALADKAR, CHRISTINA L& AASJISH B 3730 KENTUCKY ST A 3975 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 3641 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 SANFORD, FL 32773 KINGSLEY, HOLLY M 3967 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 LAWHORNE, JAIMESEN L& RODRIGUEZ, RICARDO A 3959 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 MCCLOUD, SYDNEY R& CURTIS D 3657 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 MERCHANT, AUN A& ZEHRA 3635 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 NGUYEN, KATHERINE K 3947 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 PARRA, GERMAN &ECHARRY-PARRA, ANAMARIA 3955 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 PETTY, CHARLES L III& VICTORIA 3963 LIGHTNING CT SAN FORD, FL 32773 RUIZ, WILLIAM S 3980 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 LAGGNER, RYAN J& VARGAS, MARIA V 3816 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 MARTINEZ, CHRISTIAN A& PORTER, ALEXANDRA N 3836 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 MCKINN EY, JASON S& DORCA 1 3804 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 MURPHY, ROBERT M& SUSAN 1 261 STATES RD DALTON, PA 18414 ORDONEZ, SEBASTIAN S& LAUREL R 3649 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 PATTERSON, HUNTER& HANNAH 3943 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 RIVERA HERNANDEZ, DOEL& VALLE SEGARRA, CINTHIA M 3648 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 SALAS, JOSEPH& YESELLE 3820 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 LARA MILANES, JULIO A& MILANES, EDITH P H 3848 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 MC NEIL, DORIANNE 3644 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 MEISTER, BRANDON L& AMY S 3843 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 NAIDU, FELICIA M 3601 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 PARKVIEW PLACE COMMUNITYHOMEOWNERS ASSN INC 2966 COMMERCE PARK DR ORLANDO, FL 32819 PERSAUD, DEONARINE ENHLIFE EST & PERSAUD, 3590 SKYWAY DR SANFORD, FL 32773 RODRIGUEZ, EVELYN C& FIGUEROA MOLINA, JANIRA L 3653 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 SANFORD CITY OF 300 N PARK AVE SANFORD, FL 32771 SEMINOLE B C C SISK, JAMES N& SHANIQUE N ST LOUIS, KEVIN M& SEAY-ST LOUIS, 1101 E 1ST ST 3831 CORONA CT JENNIFER L SANFORD, FL 32771 SANFORD, FL 32773 3600 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 STEWART, NICHOLAS A STOKES, KATHERINE F SZENTE, JUDIT 3847 CORONA CT 3608 VOYAGER LN 3844 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 SANFORD, FL 32773 SANFORD, FL 32773 TAKVORIAN PROPERTIES LLC 26 BRIDGE ST HACKENSACK, NJ 0 TOLL SOUTHEAST LP COMPANY INC 250 GIBRALTAR RD HORSHAM, PA 19044 UPPERCO, JASON L& DEBBIE A 3968 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 WILSKE, KENT N & CHERREZCHANG AJOY, MARJORIE V 3972 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 TAYLOR, JUSTIN K& WRIGHT, KELSIE B 3840 CORONA CT SAN FORD, FL 32773 TRULOCK, TRENT 3824 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 TAYLOR, MICHAELJ& MATTEI-TAYLOR, CHERYLANN L 3971 LIGHTNING CT SANFORD, FL 32773 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C/O UNITED STATES ARMY CORP PO BOX 2288 MOBILE, AL 36652 WEEDEN, GLENN R& MASLIK, CAROLYN WILLIAMS, STEVEN T& LYDIA R 3808 CORONA CT 3616 VOYAGER LN SANFORD, FL 32773 SANFORD, FL 32773 YAHAV, YORAM J ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM L& FLORENCE P 0 BOX 58077BLDG 4 M TEL AVIV, ISRAEL 6158002 3835 CORONA CT SANFORD, FL 32773 SKYWAY TOWNHOMES Project N2 21077 June 2021 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SEMINOLE COUNTY FLORIDA Prepared by: Prepared for: Toll Brothers 2966 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32819 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proiect Information Name: Skyway Townhomes Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Kentucky Street and Skyway Drive in the City of Sanford, Seminole County, Florida Description: 85 townhomes and 7,000 square feet of commercial/retail space Findinqs Trip Generation: 1,166 Daily Trips / 46 AM Peak Hour Trips / 88 PM Peak Hour Trips Access Plan: Full access on Skyway Drive and Right -In -Right -Out access on E. Lake Mary Boulevard Roadway Capacity: All study roadway segments will operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) at buildout. Intersection Capacity: The intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive will experience delays on both minor approaches. Seminole County has identified a need for a traffic signal at this intersection; therefore, the applicant will be responsible for a "Developer Contribution" to the total cost of the signal based on the project trips allocated to the intersection. The other study intersections and the project access on E. Lake Mary Boulevard are projected to operate at adequate LOS. Turn Lanes: Left and right turn deceleration lanes are not warranted at the project access driveways. Skyway Townhomes TM Traffic Impact Analysis -C.� Traffic &Mobility ConsultantsProject Ns 21077 Executive Summary PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I am a Professional Engineer properly registered in the State of Florida practicing with Traffic & Mobility Consultants LLC, a corporation authorized to operate as an engineering business, CA -30024, by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, and that I have prepared or approved the evaluations, findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice attached hereto for: PROJECT: Skyway Townhomes LOCATION: City of Sanford, Seminole County, Florida CLIENT: Toll Brothers I hereby acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in these computations are standard to the professional practice of Transportation Engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED AND SEALED BY ON THE DATE ADJACENT TO THE SEAL PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED AND THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON ANY ELECTRONIC COPIES. TRAFFIC & MOBILITY CONSULTANTS LLC 3101 MAGUIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 265 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION CA -30024 AYMAN H. AS-SAIDI, P.E. NO 56849 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS................................................................................3 2.1 Roadway Segment Capacity..........................................................................................3 2.2 Intersection Capacity...................................................................................................... 3.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC..........................................................................................................6 3.1 Trip Generation...............................................................................................................6 3.2 Trip Distribution..............................................................................................................6 4.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS..........................................................................8 4.1 Roadway Segment Capacity.......................................................................................... 8 4.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis........................................................................................ 5.0 ACCESS REVIEW...........................................................................................................14 6.0 STUDY CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................15 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................16 Appendix A Preliminary Site Plan Appendix B Transportation Methodology and Approval Correspondence Appendix C Seminole County E+C Data and Generalized Maximum Service Volumes Appendix D Intersection Traffic Counts and Seminole County Seasonal Factor Appendix E Existing Conditions Analysis Worksheets Appendix F Trip Generation Sheets, Internal Capture and Pass -By Rates Appendix G OUATS Model Distribution Plots Appendix H Volume Projections and Vested Trip Calculations Appendix I Projected Conditions Analysis Worksheets Appendix J Seminole County Internal Memorandum Signal Warrant Analysis Appendix K FDOT Right Turn Lane Guidelines Skyway Townhomes Th Traffic Impact Analysis C Project Ns 21077 Traffk a Mobility consultants Table of Contents i LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis.............................................................................. 3 Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis..........................................................................5 Table 3 Trip Generation Analysis.................................................................................................6 Table 4 Projected Roadway Capacity Analysis........................................................................... 8 Table 5 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis....................................................................9 Table 6 Projected Total Intersection Capacity Analysis.............................................................10 Table 7 Intersection Mitigation Results......................................................................................13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Site Location Map...........................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Existing Intersection Volumes.........................................................................................4 Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution..................................................................................................7 Figure 4 Projected AM Peak Intersection Volumes....................................................................11 Figure 5 Projected PM Peak Intersection Volumes....................................................................12 Skyway Townhomes Tm Traffic Impact Analysis -.C� Traffic 8 Mobility ConsultantsProject Ns 21077 Table of Contents ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the proposed Skyway Townhomes development, consisting of 85 multi -family dwelling units (townhomes) and 7,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, with a proposed buildout year of 2024. The site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Kentucky Street and Skyway Drive, in the City of Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. The site location and property boundary are illustrated in Figure 1. Proposed access to the site will be via one (1) full access driveway on Skyway Drive and one (1) Right-In/Right-Out (RI/RO) access on E. Lake Mary Boulevard. The preliminary site plan is provided in Appendix A. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the approved methodology by the City of Sanford and Seminole County. A copy of the methodology is included in Appendix B. Information used in the analysis was obtained from Seminole County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the project team. The facilities considered in the analysis are: Study Segments (within 1 -mile): • BDL20 Beardall Avenue/Skyway Drive, from SR 46 to Kentucky Street • LKM80 E. Lake Mary Boulevard, from CR 427/Ronald Reagan Boulevard to Red Cleveland Boulevard • LKM90 E. Lake Mary Boulevard, from Red Cleveland Boulevard to Cameron Avenue • Red Cleveland Boulevard, from E. Lake Mary Boulevard to Marquette Avenue Study Intersections (within %-mile): • E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Sipes Avenue (Unsignalized) • E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive (Unsignalized) • E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Cameron Avenue (Unsignalized) • Project access driveway on Skyway Drive (Unsignalized) • Project access driveway on E. Lake Mary Boulevard (Right-In/Right-Out) Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Tjkc-vProject Ns 21077 Page 1 Traffic a Mobility Consultants Not to Scab NUdwater 4611 46AI Figure 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 2.1 Roadway Segment Capacity The existing condition of the study segments was analyzed using the Seminole County Roadway Concurrency (E+C) Information dated March 1, 2021, and the Seminole County Generalized Maximum Service Volumes, which are included in Appendix C. The roadway segment analysis, summarized in Table 1, indicates that the study segments are currently operating at acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Table 1 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis Source: Seminole County Summary of Roadmy Concurrency Information, March 1, 2021 Seminole County Generalized Maximum Services Volumes " FDOT Florida Traffic Online (2020 AADT), FDOT LOS STD & Seminole County Service Volumes 2.2 Intersection Capacity An intersection capacity analysis was conducted using Synchro software and the methods of the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM). The capacity analysis was performed for the existing traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours. A seasonal adjustment factor of 1.06 was applied to the counts. The field counts and FDOT season factor category report are included in Appendix D. The adjusted existing AM and PM intersection volumes are presented in Figure 2. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project N2TWLC 21077 Traffic d Mobility Consultants Page 3 AM Peak At N Not W Scale 4 � cn 0 0 0 E. Lake Ma Blvd y 0 <— 1205 4 � � 2 rT w r` oo <J � 4 20 1182 10 Q C 0 cv E m V 0 00 <-1y 4 t 0 <— 1205 4 �` Io T oo( �` F> T � 0 TC 14 0 620 598 616 5� 17� 0� PM Peak CD CL C c E m �2 �6 �1 C) CO <- 636 11 0 oo N O N <- 614 11 r- O N <- 641 2 E. Lake Ma Blvd tJ y 4 < 40 0 (000 8 Lo C) 0 000 T 1466 1451 1472 7 20� 3� Figure The results of the intersection analysis, presented in Table 2, indicate that the existing intersections are operating adequately during the AM and PM peak hour, except for the intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive, which is experiencing delays on the northbound approach during the PM peak hour. Detailed analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E. Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Source: Synchro software. Delay expressed in seconds/vehicle. Delay shown is the highest on the approach Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project NsTWLC 21077 Trac a Mobility. Consultants Page 5 Traffic 3.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC 3.1 Trip Generation The trip generation analysis was conducted using information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Table 3 summarizes the resulting trip generation calculation for the site. The ITE information sheets are included in Appendix F. Table 3 Trip Generation Analysis The ITE equations were used when R -squared was greater than 0.75 and has 20 or more studies Internal Capture based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (included in the Attachments) Pass -By rate based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition The development is projected to generate a total of 1,166 net external daily trips, of which 46 trips occur during the AM peak hour, and 88 occur during the PM peak hour. 3.2 Trip Distribution The project trip distribution was estimated based on the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study model (OUATS Cost Feasible 2025) and modified to account for traffic coming from the Orlando - Sanford International Airport. The adjusted project distribution is displayed in Figure 3. The OUATS model printouts are included in Appendix G. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis TWLCProject N2 21077 Page 6 Traffic i Mobility Consultants cj c, r cl, s a, r o a SITE Inset k N Not to scole 5% �5% 5% F>��609/6---) <—] <-80% 25'/a—> Z�c 5% —5% LO 250 W) w /6-7� 650/6 C14 LO L> CD (@S) ----- - -2-5 < Z 1 80%—> - SITE its /l;ggm le Figure "'O'N 4.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 4.1 Roadway Segment Capacity Roadway segment analyses were conducted for the study roadway segments using the total projected daily traffic volumes. Total projected daily volumes were calculated by adding existing traffic, committed trips from the Seminole County database and the committed trips for six (6) surrounding developments: Sipes Avenue Property, Kentucky Square, Parkview Place, Galileo School, River Run Preserve and Comfort Inn. Projected roadway conditions were analyzed by comparing the total projected traffic volumes on the study segments to their respective service volumes at the adopted LOS standard. The projected daily analyses are summarized in Table 4. .-- v,roject -. Roadwayp s s - • BDL20 Beardall Ave/Skyway Dr SR 46 to Project Access S E 19,360 20 710 5,533 30% 508 6,771 A BDL20 Beardall Ave/Skyway Dr Project Access S to Kentucky St E 19,360 20 710 5,533 5% 85 6,348 A LKM80 E. Lake Mary Blvd CR 427 to Red Cleveland Blvd E 42,560 23,619 9,335 6,751 75% 1,270 40,975 E LKM90 E. Lake Mary Blvd Red Cleveland Blvd to Project Access E 42,560 19,375 5,179 7,404 90% 1,524 33,482 E LKM90 E. Lake Mary Blvd Project Access to Skyway Dr E 42,560 19,375 5,179 7,404 90% 1,524 33,482 E LKM90 E. Lake Mary Blvd Skyway Dr to Cameron Ave E 42,560 19,375 5,179 7,404 10% 169 32,127 D Red Cleveland Blvd E. Lake Mary Blvd to Marquette Ave D 42,560 6,200 0 0 10% 169 6,369 B Source: Seminole County Summary of Roadv y Concurrency Information, March 1, 2021 Seminole County Generalized Maximum Services Volumes FDOT Florida Traffic Online (2020 AAOT), FOOT LOS STD & Seminole County Service Volumes Committed Trips includes vested trips from Sipes Avenue Property, Kentucky Square, Parkview Place, Galileo School, River Run Preserve & Comfort Inn The analysis indicates the study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable LOS at project buildout. 4.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis of the study intersections and both project access driveways was conducted using the Synchro 10 software and the HCM 6th Edition procedures. The analysis was performed by adding existing traffic volumes, Seminole County's committed trips and the project trips at buildout to assess the net impact of the proposed development on the operation of the adjacent intersections. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns -MLC 21077 Traffic & Mobility Consultants Page 8 PM peak hour committed trips were calculated by multiplying daily trips from the County database by K (0.09) and D (0.568) factors. Per Seminole County, the committed trips include the committed trips from the six (6) surrounding developments: Sipes Avenue Property, Kentucky Square, Parkview Place, Galileo School, River Run Preserve and Comfort Inn. The calculations of the background and committed trips are included in Appendix H. Table 5 shows the intersection analysis for background traffic conditions. The detailed background HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I. Table 5 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis Source: Synchro software. Delay expressed in seconds/vehicle. Delay shovvn is the highest on the approach Table 5 shows that the intersections of Sipes Avenue and Skyway Drive at E. Lake Mary Boulevard are projected to experience delays on the northbound and southbound approaches due to background traffic conditions. The volume to capacity (V/C) ratios on these approaches at the Sipes Avenue intersection are less than 1.0 during the PM peak hour. However, for the intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive, the V/C ratios on the northbound approach during the AM and PM peak hours are greater than 1.0. The high volume of vested trips generated from the six (6) surrounding proposed projects will cause these delays at the intersection. Seminole County has determined the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive. An excerpt of the County's internal memorandum with a signal warrant analysis is included in Appendix J. The intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard at Cameron Avenue is experiencing delays on the northbound approach with a V/C ratio less than 1.0. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21077 TM -C..�Page 9 Traffic 3 Mobility Consultants Project trips were calculated based on peak hour trip generation and the trip distribution pattern. The calculations of the projected volumes are included in Appendix H. Figure 4 and Figure 5 provide the total traffic volumes at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hour at project buildout of the proposed Skyway Townhomes development. The results of the capacity analysis at project buildout are summarized in Table 6. The detailed projected HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J. Table 6 Projected Total Intersection Capacity Analysis L 5.5. 157 / / l/ / 1LT571 , ori ii r"1,17' rGrG ,�%i�yia D a , phi,�'r , OS F/111/11 ; ela 45,, ; ela. , LaSDela , ,� iv ,w�llii[7- i, , [r E. - Mary Blvd: 0 , Sipes- E. Lake Mary Blvd & Skyway Dr E. Lake Mary Blvd & Cameron - E. - Mary Blvd:N 0 �� Project Access Skyway Dr & u Project Source: Synchro software. Delay expressed in seconds vehicle Delay show is the highest on the approach As shown in Table 6, the intersections of Sipes Avenue and Skyway Drive at E. Lake Mary Boulevard will continue to experience delays on the northbound and southbound approaches at project buildout. The V/C ratios on these approaches at the Sipes Avenue intersection are lower than 1.0 during the PM peak hour. However, for the future signalized intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive, the V/C ratios on the northbound approach during the AM and PM peak hours are greater than 1.0. The intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard at Cameron Avenue will continue to experience delays on the northbound approach with a V/C ratio less than 1.0 at project buildout. The proposed project access driveways are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS at project buildout. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21077 TWLCPage 10 Traffic 6 Mobility Consultants Mitigation measures were applied to add a traffic signal at the intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive, which resulted in an adequate LOS at project buildout. Detailed HCM worksheets is included in Appendix I. Table 7 shows the results of the intersection analysis with a traffic signal on the intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive. Table 7 Intersection Mitigation Results Source: Synchro software. Delay expressed in seconds/vehicle. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Tikc.vProject Ns 21077 Page 13 Tmffit a Mobility Consultants 5.0 ACCESS REVIEW The development will be accessed via one (1) full access driveway on Skyway Drive and one (1) Right-In/Right-Out (RI/RO) access on E. Lake Mary Boulevard. Adjacent to the site, E. Lake Mary Boulevard is a 4 -lane road with a posted speed of 50 mph and Skyway Drive is a 2 -lane road with a posted speed of 35 mph. The proposed access plan was evaluated to provide recommendations for deceleration lanes. A review of the right turn lane warrants at the proposed access driveways was conducted to determine if exclusive deceleration lanes are necessary. The review was conducted based on the FDOT Driveway Information Guide — Chapter 7: Right Turn Lanes, provided in Appendix K. An exclusive right turn lane is required for multilane roadways with speed limits over 45 mph if the number of right turn volume exceeds 55 vehicles per hour (vph) for high volume main roads At the E. Lake Mary Boulevard access driveway, the highest projected peak hour right turn volumes at the project driveway is 44 vph. A right turn deceleration lane on E. Lake Mary Boulevard is not warranted at the project access driveway. Per the FDOT Driveway Information Guide, an exclusive right turn lane is required for 2 -lane roads with speed limits lower than 45 mph if the number of right turn volume exceeds 80 vph. At the Skyway Drive access driveway the highest right turn volume is 15 vph. A right turn deceleration lane is not warranted at the project access driveway. At the Skyway Drive access driveway, the left turn volume is two (2) vph, which is insignificant to warrant a left turn deceleration lane. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns 21077 Page 14 Traffic 3 Mobility Consultants 6.0 STUDY CONCLUSIONS This traffic analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the proposed Skyway Townhomes. The project consists of 85 townhomes and 7,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. The site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Kentucky Street and Skyway Drive, in the City of Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. The study included a determination of project trip generation and a review of existing and projected roadway capacity and intersection operations. The results of the traffic analysis are summarized as follows: • The development is projected to generate a total of 1,166 net external daily trips, of which 46 trips occur during the AM peak hour, and 88 occur during the PM peak hour. • The roadway segment capacity analysis indicates that the study segments currently operate adequately and are projected to continue to do so at project buildout. • E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Sipes Avenue and Cameron Avenue intersections and the project access on E. Lake Boulevard are projected to operate at adequate LOS. • The intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive will experience delays on both minor approaches; the V/C ratios are greater than 1.0. The County has determined the need for a traffic signal at this intersection. • The applicant will be responsible for a "Developer Contribution" to the total cost of the signalization based on the project trips allocated to the intersection of E. Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive. • The project access driveways will operate at an adequate LOS. Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Project Ns -NLC21077 Page 15 Traffic S Mobility Consultants APPENDICES Appendix A Preliminary Site Plan Appendix B Transportation Methodology and Approval Correspondence Ju�i`isl f MEMORANDUM May 24, 2021 Re: Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology - Revised City of Sanford, Florida Project Ns 21077 The following is an outline of the revised methodology for the proposed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the above referenced project. The TIA will conform to the methodology requirements and guidelines documented by the City of Sanford and Seminole County, Florida. It addresses the comments made by Seminole County on 05/21/2021 and 05/24/21. Project Description The subject property is 14.17 acres and consists of parcels 03-20-31-5AY-0000-057A, 03-20-31- 5AY-0000-057B, 03-20-31-5AY-0000-0640 and 03-20-31-5AY-0000-064A. The applicant is proposing to develop 85 multi -family dwelling units (townhomes) and 7,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. The proposed build -out year is 2024. A preliminary conceptual site plan is included in the Attachments. Project Location The site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Kentucky Street and Skyway Drive in the City of Sanford, Florida, as shown in Figure 1. Project Access Access to the site is proposed via one full access driveway on Skyway Drive and one right-in/right- out access on E Lake Mary Boulevard, as shown in the preliminary conceptual plan. Trip Generation The trip generation analysis was conducted using information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation analysis. The ITE trip generation sheets and internal capture calculations are included in the Attachments. 3101 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 265, Orlando, Florida 32803 m P: (407) 531-5332 m F: (487) 531-5331 m www.trafficmability.com PO i d w a y 146�'i T 7 Z Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology - Revised Project N2 21077 May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Table 1 Trip Generation Calculation / .! , ,/ / /f /, r/ / // , � , / / I % / / / �/, /f/ r ,� a / f / / /r r / , �� / / , / , /iii �i Uau f // // ,/ / ✓ ;Cotte/,%,� , ncl�Use �/1/ f� r/� ��r/o;Rate///TrN �,;°'„,,,i�rli,, ��..,i. s//�:,Ra�eoTo�al�r,Enter , x�4r�Rat�e��Tota1��;:Enter�,�Ex�t M__ �-EMMMEEEMMEM .. a :: -m®®-® • • External Trips Immmmmmmmm Pass-byNet - ' ® ©©m-mmm Net New External Trips��_ Trip Generation analysis based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The ITE equations were used when R -squared was greater than 0.75 and has 20 or more studies Internal Capture based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (included in the Attachments) Pass -By rate based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition The proposed development is projected to generate 1,166 net external daily trips, of which 46 trips occur during the AM peak hour, and 88 trips occur during the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution The project trip distribution was estimated based on the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study model (OUATS Cost Feasible 2025) and was manually adjusted to reflect the local network as well as prevailing traffic flow patterns. The OUATS model printouts are included in the Attachments. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 2. Study Area The project is located within the Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area/Dense Urban Land Area (TCEA/DULA) designated areas by Seminole County; therefore, based on the thresholds listed on the County's Summary of Traffic Study Requirements for Site Impact Analysis (projects in the TCEA/DULA), the intersections that fall within '/4 -mile radius of influence and the roadway segments that fall within a 1 -mile radius will be analyzed. The following roadway segments and intersections will be included in the TIA: Study Segments: • BDL20 Beardall Avenue/Skyway Drive, from SR 46 to Kentucky Street • LKM80 E Lake Mary Boulevard, from CR 427/Ronald Reagan Boulevard to Red Cleveland Boulevard • LKM90 E Lake Mary Boulevard, from Red Cleveland Boulevard to Cameron Avenue • Red Cleveland Boulevard from E Lake Mary Boulevard to Marquette Avenue Figure 2 Project Distribution (5D p I "; cl [ZWO I f) J 21 v, 9s k N Mot t. $.W Figure Skyway Townhomes Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology - Revised Project W 21077 May 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Study Intersections: • E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive (Unsignalized) • E Lake Mary Boulevard and Sipes Avenue (Unsignalized) • E Lake Mary Boulevard and Cameron Avenue (Unsignalized) • Project access driveway on Skyway Drive (Proposed) • Project access driveway on E Lake Mary Boulevard (Proposed) Capacity Analysis Roadway segment capacity will be analyzed for existing and buildout daily traffic volumes for the additional net new trips generated by the development in addition to the committed trips from the County's database. Additionally, TMC will coordinate with county staff to include the applicable vested trips. The analysis will be based on Seminole County's adopted service volumes and capacities, as obtained from the County's latest available traffic data tables, included in the Attachments. The study intersections will be analyzed for AM and PM peak hour conditions using the methods of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The analysis will be performed for existing and buildout traffic conditions using the net new trips at the study intersection and the gross trips at the access driveway, in addition to the committed trips from the County's database and the aforementioned developments not included in the database. Site Access Review An analysis for the need of a dedicated right turn lane at the project access on E Lake Mary Boulevard will be included in the TIA report. Report A TIA report will be prepared outlining and summarizing the methods and findings of the traffic analysis prepared for the development. Appendix C Seminole County E+C Data and Generalized Maximum Service Volumes RKEY Roadway Name From TO BDL10 Beardall Ave C.R. 415 SR 46 Current Traffic Count 4I1 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 122 Net Available Capacity BDL20 BeurdaUAve S.R.46 Kentucky St Current Traffic Count 20 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 710 Net Available Capacity BGRIO Bear Gully Rd S.R. 426 Howell Branch Current Traffic Count 2,521 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity BLKOO Bear Lake Rd Orange County Line Bunnell Rd Current Traffic Count 11,442 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity BLR18 Bear Lake Rd Bunnell Rd McNeil Rd Current Traffic Count 11,325 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity ,035 BLK20 Bear Lake Rd McNeil Rd S.R. 436 Current Traffic Count 11,048 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity BMYOO Balmy Beach Dr Orleans Way S.R. 436 Current Traffic Count 5,830 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 13530 Bh0Y1n Balmy Beach Dr Holiday Ave Orleans Way Current Traffic Count 3,829 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Ca BD0Y20 Balmy Beach Dr Nell Rd Holiday Ave Current Traffic Count 2,563 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity Monday, March 1,2V21 Fane 2 o 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current RKEY Roadway Name From To LKM40 Lake Mary Blvd C.R. 15 U.S. 17-92 Current Traffic Count 25,456 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 154 Net Available Capacity LKM70 Lake Mary Blvd U.S. 17-92 SR 417 Current Traffic Count 21,587 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 1,546 Net Availb| Capacity LKM75 Lake Mary Blvd SR 417 C.R. 427 Current Traffic Count t 17,593 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 2,273 Net Availb| Capacity LKM80 E. Lake Mary Blvd C.R. 427 Red Cleveland Blvd Current Traffic Count t @3,619 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Ti rpo 9,335 Net Available Capacity LKM90 E. Lake Mary Blvd Red Cleveland Blvd Cameron Ave Current Traffic Count 19,375 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 5,179 Net Avi| b| Capacity LKM92 E. Lake Mary Blvd Cameron Ave S.R. 46 Current Traffic Count t 15,605 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 4,92& Net Avi| b| Capacity LKWOO Lockwood Blvd C.R. 426 C.R. 419 Current Traffic Count 7,404 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Avi| b| Capacity LKW25 Lockwood Blvd C.R. 419 Mitchell Hammock Current Traffic Count 34,369 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 710 Net Availb| Capacity LKW30 Lockwood Blvd Mitchell Hammock Oviedo City Limits Current Traffic Count t 22,650i Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips £86 Net Ai| b| Capacity Monday, March / �U�Y ' Page 22of50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information aoofthe above referenced date. RKEY Roadway Name From TO SEMIO Seminola Blvd U.S. 17-92 Button Rd Current Traffic Count 19,543 Roadway Link Capacity £2,560 Committed Trips 565 Net Availb| Capacity SEM20 Seminola Blvd Button Rd Winter Park Dr Current Traffic Count 28,303 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Ti rpo 886 Net Ai| b| Capacity SEM30 Seminola Blvd Winter Park Dr East Lake Dr Current Traffic Count t 24,378 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 1,433 Net Avi| b| Capacity SEM40 Seminola Blvd East Lake Dr Murphy Rd Current Traffic Count t 17,554 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 1,405 Net Ai| b| Capacity SEM50 Seminola Blvd Murphy Rd Lake Dr Current Traffic Count t 1Z,0[73 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed pm 1,499 Net Avi| b| Capacity SEM60 Seminole Ave North St E. Hillcrest St Current Traffic Count t 1,905 Roadway Link Capacity 29,360 Committed Trips g Net Available Capacity SIL10 Silkwood Ct U.S. 17-92 C.R. 427 Current Traffic Count 9,£53 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Availb| Capacity SIPIO Sipes Ave S.R. 46 CR. 415 Current Traffic Count 713 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 202 Net Availb| Capacity SIP20 Sipes Ave Pine Way Ave S.R. 46 Current T f� � t Traffic Count 145 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips Net Available Capacity Monday, March 1, 2021 Page 42ofJD This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information 000fthe above referenced date. Generalized Maximum Service Volumes for County Arterial and Collector Roadways Annual Average Daily Volumes Urban Arterial and Collector Roadways LOS 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane A 13,640 0 0 B 14,620 19,150 28,730 C 15,530 25,540 38,310 D 17,800 32,320 48,520 E 19,360 42,560 63,840 Rural Arterial and Collector Roadways LOS 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane A 2,250 15,675 23,510 B 5,250 23,750 35,625 C 9,000 30,875 46,310 D 15,000 38,000 57,000 E 20,000 47,500 71,250 Peak Hour Directional Volumes Urban Arterial and Collector Roadways LOS 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane A 640 0 0 B 680 900 1,340 C 730 1,200 1,800 D 830 1,600 2,450 E 900 2,100 3,000 Rural Arterial and Collector Roadways LOS 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane A 100 780 1,100 B 260 1,180 1,670 C 450 1,530 2,160 D 740 1,900 2,700 E 1,000 2,400 3,300 Source: Seminole County (2008) TRANSPORTATION TRA Exhibit -17 Last amended on 12/09/2008 by Ord. 2008-44 Generalized Maximum Service Volumes for State Roadways Annual Average Daily Volumes Arterials LOS 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane 8 -Lane A 14,385 16,000 25,000 34,000 B 15,750 25,000 35,000 45,000 C 16,380 33,000 45,000 57,000 D 17,325 40,000 52,000 64,000 E 18,270 48,000 60,000 72,000 Freeways LOS 4 6 8 A 27,800 41,700 55,500 B 42,800 64,300 85,700 C 61,100 91,600 122,200 D 73,800 110,700 147,600 E 79,300 119,000 158,700 Peak Hour Directional Volumes Arterials LOS 2 -Lane 4 -Lane 6 -Lane 8 -Lane A 670 750 1,170 1,590 B 740 1,170 1,640 2,110 C 770 1,540 2,100 2,660 D 810 1,760 2,570 3,330 E 850 2,000 2,800 3,600 Freeways LOS 4 -Lane 6 -Lane 8 -Lane A 1,270 1,970 2,660 B 2,110 3,260 4,410 C 2,940 4,550 6,150 D 3,580 5,530 7,480 E 3,980 6,150 8,320 Source: Seminole County (2008) TRANSPORTATION TRA Exhibit -18 Last amended on 12/09/2008 by Ord. 2008-44 Appendix D Intersection Traffic Counts and Seminole County Seasonal Factor a] a z ¢ F z i;)N O y U F � z m w y z a w � > a 0 z k c: a FM p F n N M u1 N M n M a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C1 i QJ N .- O N co n m N N M N N N N a � N N � N 0 N •- a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 zF o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C V7 O u7 O� O� O r i� n o0 00 0o co ai t Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q r 0 In O M O Il') O N 87,o in v 0 .- M 'd' r punogpaAk M E Lake Diary Bou a ¢ o c_ c_ i' z nog ,SjuIV a)ie'I a o n a� E O O opunoglsng x 1 N 0. `a .= c N N O F x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � I F M �! rn m co r m m C O O .- 0 0 .- o .7 0 0 0 0 0 .- O ' W F 0 Mr CG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O o o O O o o o p F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o .7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n Z F O O d O o 0 0 0 CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ �T= o m o w o un o r7i o M v o � M v in oo ro ao m a no c a ¢ M co m o u rn �n rn F 3 D^Q �2r�2 �2 �R yi F m V m O N w a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h Q$ O O M N M .- O N =E.00000000 2 IL(L 0- m m m m m o.addaaaa V V V' N tl7 In N O a a d a a a d a y O M v o Mv, v v v v �n iri vi u� a E.- v N Go co r Lo v F o o o o o o o o a O o o o O O o o -a. -000000o WF N to N to M N x o 0 o o o o o o .a o o o o o o o o F o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o -a o o o o o o o o zE. o o o o o o o o x o O o o o o o o ���mmm(LM aa�o_ada.a � to o to o,2 o N o W r M v o M v o V V 7 in in iri N iD CL a a a a a a a S. o u> o to o n o to V V V V to � N u7 Cl) °' M 00 0 N O N o � o 0 L2 N o 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 2 2 2 IL a a o o o 6 6 tri o_ a D- o o o o 0 o o o o V LO V n x a F F O F a 4 M m rn (D 0 F F O O r 0 (D N 0) M D O D r r o� N N M N N N N .- W F" rn rn !�2 �R �2 rn zE o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a aV W M O; M V O Q r Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q R O O o-0 y OO � ("J �Y O D M V' rr r m m w a E co If) ID IDro m O N N F a o 0 o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FK O O o o o o o o a o o o N T o 0 0 zF 0 0 0 o o o o o a O O O N O O �- O 'C Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q W M VN' O M Ln O Q Q Q Q Q 4 Q Q o o m o w o in [n O M V O M r r 9 zi (n co ro ro ti O O O N M CO) O Cl) O co N M Cl) 00 O O O O 00 0 O O O N � M O O O Q Q Q O O r ai ro Q Q Q N 0 0 Ln 00 0 co n n xa' F F H w a Puna91"M °r' H E Lake Mary Blv a r in M in in O u� v H O M Om- W N N M co c0� (O') CM] .0 h .- Qr'' CO O V a a M r co O� 7 0 M MS ,c.,ey� a�e7 H 2 E w to m a co r v N v v �n M o a a a a a a d a Ptm091Se21 v v v iii Gi iri Gi iv LLaan an. n. o. RO Lo lC1 O 4"I O O O O Puna91"M °r' o O O �- i E Lake Mary Blv P.0— .0 O .0 h h N O V MS ,c.,ey� a�e7 H E w to m 0 o x 1 Ptm091Se21 a a F a 0 0 0 o o o o o F N M "! M— N N N x O O O O o o O O a o o o o 0 0 o o x 0 0 o o o o o a 0 0 0 o o o o o F o 0 0 o o o 0 o CL O o 0 o o o o o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 zF— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ai N O O O O O O O W 2 M M O � M uV O V V V N N i(i ifi (O rs o o u) o n o un v - v O 00 N r N O 00 O O O V N 4 0 00 0 O O O 00 0 N O N � O � N O N M a a a O O O in (D N EL a a o O O n 00 00 c{ u1 V a y r O F k T W U U a Q N Cl) C2 (o (D O M N QM M"r V -,r V M N F (� F M N O N 1� N IA N N O N M N N N W O �2 Q) N a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z a o 000.-000 'O a Q Q Q S Q Q Q W `�Mvo�Mao L a Q a Q a Q Q a .R. O� O n O� O () y 0 M yr O M 7t rr r r� of ro � m Puno91raM M E Lake Mary Blv o F F o so ---------------- � ^13 klUN aKL-1 a O N O 4J d o x m 4 b a Fco M r r rn N N O E a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E M r n m T m 0 (3' 0 0 0 c- O O O O a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WE m m rn rn rn v fly O O o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (y E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cd o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 zE o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tk o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q C W co Vim' O M V O 1� 1- r- -QQQQQQQQ < < < < < < < < v O O N O N O O M V O M V' r r r r w ro m m a O rn co M to o 0 rn rn pvv�nvO +0 q q E a 0 0 0 0 00 5 F r r M o .n M PJ o ° �2 V o a o 0 0 0 o N o 0 a o O o 0 o M F W N N M m m Cl) Cl) M h a N O O N O O O O z a �000000.- CL m m m a d m d d a v v v ui vi ui �ri id ^-'t�dadaaaa R O ate O N O� O N v v v v ii vi 0 vi � m o O O N 10 LO m 0 10 O N N O In co m d Ot N V t0+] o � o N � '- 0 0 0 � O N o o 0 a a d 0 o r0i ID to a a a O O m O v oV- io c'a x a+ H E v ti O 0 F a a OF Q1 Y N W M O 1n 'U' E a o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o a o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 WE N- t- In N 1n M N (Yy o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o zE o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o ^o a a a a a a a a W CS't O M ''t O V' V V' ifl to l(1 i(i (p ;. aaaaaaaa O Omotoom y O M v O (n y m U) m to 2020 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 7700 SEMINOLE COUNTYWIDE WEEK DATES SF MOCF: 0.93 PSCF -------------- * 1 01/01/2020 - 01/04/2020 0.99 -------- 1.06 * 2 01/05/2020 - 01/11/2020 0.94 1.01 * 3 01/12/2020 - 01/18/2020 0.90 0.97 * 4 01/19/2020 - 01/25/2020 0.89 0.96 * 5 01/26/2020 - 02/01/2020 0.88 0.95 * 6 02/02/2020 - 02/08/2020 0.86 0.92 * 7 02/09/2020 - 02/15/2020 0.85 0.91 * 8 02/16/2020 - 02/22/2020 0.88 0.95 * 9 02/23/2020 - 02/29/2020 0.92 0.99 *10 03/01/2020 - 03/07/2020 0.95 1.02 *11 03/08/2020 - 03/14/2020 0.98 1.05 *12 03/15/2020 - 03/21/2020 1.02 1.10 *13 03/22/2020 - 03/28/2020 1.08 1.16 14 03/29/2020 - 04/04/2020 1.15 1.24 15 04/05/2020 - 04/11/2020 1.22 1.31 16 04/12/2020 - 04/18/2020 1.29 1.39 17 04/19/2020 - 04/25/2020 1.23 1.32 18 04/26/2020 - 05/02/2020 1.17 1.26 19 05/03/2020 - 05/09/2020 1.12 1.20 20 05/10/2020 - 05/16/2020 1.06 1.14 21 05/17/2020 - 05/23/2020 1.05 1.13 22 05/24/2020 - 05/30/2020 1.04 1.12 23 05/31/2020 - 06/06/2020 1.03 1.11 24 06/07/2020 - 06/13/2020 1.02 1.10 25 06/14/2020 - 06/20/2020 1.01 1.09 26 06/21/2020 - 06/27/2020 1.01 1.09 27 06/28/2020 - 07/04/2020 1.02 1.10 28 07/05/2020 - 07/11/2020 1.03 1.11 29 07/12/2020 - 07/18/2020 1.04 1.12 30 07/19/2020 - 07/25/2020 1.03 1.11 31 07/26/2020 - 08/01/2020 1.03 1.11 32 08/02/2020 - 08/08/2020 1.03 1.11 33 08/09/2020 - 08/15/2020 1.03 1.11 34 08/16/2020 - 08/22/2020 1.02 1.10 35 08/23/2020 - 08/29/2020 1.02 1.10 36 08/30/2020 - 09/05/2020 1.02 1.10 37 09/06/2020 - 09/12/2020 1.02 1.10 38 09/13/2020 - 09/19/2020 1.02 1.10 39 09/20/2020 - 09/26/2020 1.01 1.09 40 09/27/2020 - 10/03/2020 1.00 1.08 41 10/04/2020 - 10/10/2020 0.98 1.05 42 10/11/2020 - 10/17/2020 0.97 1.04 43 10/18/2020 - 10/24/2020 0.98 1.05 44 10/25/2020 - 10/31/2020 0.98 1.05 45 11/01/2020 - 11/07/2020 0.99 1.06 46 11/08/2020 - 11/14/2020 0.99 1.06 47 11/15/2020 - 11/21/2020 1.00 1.08 48 11/22/2020 - 11/28/2020 0.99 1.06 49 11/29/2020 - 12/05/2020 0.99 1.06 50 12/06/2020 - 12/12/2020 0.99 1.06 51 12/13/2020 - 12/19/2020 0.99 1.06 52 12/20/2020 - 12/26/2020 0.94 1.01 53 12/27/2020 - 12/31/2020 0.90 0.97 * PEAK SEASON 27 -FEB -2021 10:30:05 830UPD 5 7700 PKSEASON.TXT Appendix E Existing Conditions Analysis Worksheets HCM6th TWSC 1: Sipes Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 ' ' 280 ' ' ' ' 0.027 ' ' 0.023 HCNControl Delay &A 26.8 U - Vohin Median Storage, # - 0 ' ' O - ' HCM05th %hle Q(voh) 03 O - - 0.1 - - 01 Grade, % Traffic Vol, voh/h O 1466 7 11 636 2 G O 10 3 1 O Future Vol, veh/h O 1488 7 11 836 2 6 O 10 3 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr O O U 8 O O O O O O 0 U Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 ' ' 280 ' ' ' ' 0.027 ' ' 0.023 HCNControl Delay &A 26.8 U - Vohin Median Storage, # - 0 ' ' O - ' HCM05th %hle Q(voh) 03 O - - 0.1 - - 01 Grade, % ' U - - O - - O - - U ' Peak Hour Factor SG 86 96 86 96 96 06 QG 86 86 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, 96 2 2 14 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 WvmtFlow O 1527 7 11 863 2 G U 10 3 1 O Conflicting Flow All 685 O O 1534 O O 1885 2218 767 1450 2220 333 Stage - - - - - - 1531 1531 ' 686 086 - Stage - - ' ' - - 354 687 ' 764 1534 ' ChUmd Hdwy 414 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 694 7.54 8.54 6.84 Critical Hdwy0g1 ' - - - ' ' 6.54 5.54 ' 6.54 5.54 - Critical HdwyStg2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 222 - - 2.22 ' ' 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 PotCop~1 Maneuver 920 - - 430 - ' 43 43 345 82 43 683 Stage - ' ' ' ' ' 122 177 ' 404 448 ' Stage - - - - ' ' 036 446 - 362 177 - Platoon blocked, 96 MovCap4 Maneuver 920 ' ' 430 ' - 42 42 345 87 42 663 MnvCap-2 Maneuver ' ' ' ' - - 102 130 ' 208 124 ' Stage - - - - - - 122 177 ' 404 434 - Stage - ' ' - - - 618 434 ' 351 177 - Approach EB WB NB SB HQNControl Delay, o O 02 26.8 25.7 CapanhykmWh\ 182 920 - - 430 - ' 178 HCMLane VACRatio 0.082 ' - ' 0.027 ' ' 0.023 HCNControl Delay &A 26.8 U - ' 13.8 ' - 25.7 HCMLane LOS D A ' - B - ' D HCM05th %hle Q(voh) 03 O - - 0.1 - - 01 2107Skyway Town homes 05N3/2021 Synom@Report Existing - PM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Sipes Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations ) 0 Minorl ) 0 Minor2 - 0.006 - - - + Conflicting Flow All 1255 + 0 0 1285 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 620 5 4 1205 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 620 5 4 1205 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 -- - Platoon blocked, % - - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 40 50 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 646 5 4 1255 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.029 Minor2 - 0.006 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 1255 0 0 651 0 0 1285 1912 326 1586 1914 628 Stage 1 - - - - - - 649 649 - 1263 1263 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 636 1263 - 323 651 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 5.1 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - 2.7 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 550 - - 670 - - 122 67 670 73 67 426 Stage 1 - - - - - - 425 464 - 180 239 - Stage 2 - - - - - 433 239 - 663 463 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 550 - 670 - - 121 67 670 72 67 426 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 250 170 - 149 170 - Stage 1 - - - - 425 464 - 180 238 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 430 238 - 655 463 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.6 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Maier Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR ,WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehlh) 429 550 - - 670 - - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.029 - - - 0.006 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.6 0 - - 10.4 - - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A - - B - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Existing - AM HCM 6th TWSC 1: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.6 EBL EBT EBR WBL 'WBT' WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 0 1954 ) t1.) - - - - - + r - 4� 1277 Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 598 17 10 1182 20 20 0 16 0 0 7 Future Vol, veh/h 14 598 17 10 1182 20 20 0 16 0 0 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - - 175 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 422 Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 382 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 19 11 3 2 11 2 20 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 629 18 11 1244 21 21 0 17 0 0 7 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 876 - - 422 Minor2 0.095 0.027 Conflicting Flow All 1265 0 0 647 0 0 1312 1955 324 1622 1954 633 Stage 1 - - - - - - 668 668 - 1277 1277 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 644 1287 - 345 677 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.32 - - 7.72 6.54 7.3 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.72 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 6.72 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - 2.31 - - 3.61 4.02 3.5 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 545 - 876 - - 108 63 622 68 63 422 Stage 1 - - - - - - 393 455 - 176 236 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 407 233 - 644 450 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 545 - 876 - - 103 60 622 64 60 422 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 221 155 - 140 162 - Stage 1 - - - - - 382 442 - 171 233 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 395 230 - 609 437 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.1 17.6 13.7 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 221 622 545 - - 876 - - 422 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 0.027 0.027 - - 0.012 - - 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 23 10.9 11.8 - - 9.2 - - 13.7 HCM Lane LOS C B B - - A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Existing - AM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL "WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 0 - 13.5 - ) 0 F C +T r - C 4 0.6 Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 1451 20 11 614 6 15 0 11 28 0 20 Future Vol, veh/h 8 1451 20 11 614 6 15 0 11 28 0 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - 175 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 2 2 2 4 2 14 2 20 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 1496 21 11 633 6 15 0 11 29 0 21 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 639 0 0 1517 0 0 1862 2184 759 1422 2191 320 Stage - - - - - - 1523 1523 - 658 658 - Stage 2 - - - - 339 661 - 764 1533 - Critical Hdwy 4.36 - 4.14 - 7.78 6.54 7.3 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.78 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 6.78 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.33 - - 2.22 - - 3.64 4.02 3.5 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 870 - - 436 - - 39 45 312 96 45 676 Stage 1 - - - - - - 110 179 - 420 459 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 458 - 362 177 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 870 - - 436 - - 37 43 312 90 43 676 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 92 131 - 210 124 - Stage 1 - - - - - 109 177 - 416 448 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 583 447 - 346 175 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 37.1 19.6 HCM LOS E C Capacity (veh/h) 92 312 870 - - 436 - - 295 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.168 0.036 0.009 - - 0.026 - - 0.168 HCM Control Delay (s) 51.9 17 9.2 - - 13.5 - - 19.6 HCM Lane LOS F C A - - B - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.1 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.6 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Existing - PM HCM 6th TWSC 3: Cameron Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Lane Configurations ) 0 ) Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 616 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 616 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Storage Length 280 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 0 648 0 Major/Minor +T Major2 ) T HCM Lane V/C Ratio ) T - 4 1205 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 1205 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - - None - 5.54 None - - None 280 - - 195 5.54 - 100 - - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 25 3 2 100 2 2 2 2 2 4 1268 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 - 794 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.008 - Conflicting Flow All 1268 0 0 648 0 0 1290 1924 324 1600 1924 634 Stage 1 - - - - - - 648 648 - 1276 1276 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 642 1276 - 324 648 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.6 - - 9.5 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 8.5 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 8.5 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.45 - - 4.5 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 544 - - 794 - - 54 66 672 71 66 422 Stage 1 - - - - - - 253 464 - 176 236 - Stage 2 - - - - - 256 236 - 662 464 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 544 - 794 - 54 66 672 70 66 422 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 141 169 - 146 168 - Stage 1 - - - - 253 464 - 176 235 - Stage 2 - - - - - 255 235 - 657 464 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.8 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn9 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 141 672 544 - - 794 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 0.008 - - 0.005 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 30.7 10.4 0 - 9.6 - - 0 0 HCM Lane LOS D B A - A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 - - 0 - - - - 21077 Skyway Town homes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Existing - AM HCM 6th TWSC 3: Cameron Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Lane Configurations ) tT Mnor1 ) t14 Minor2 - 0.005 - T+ Conflicting Flow All 676 T 0 1893 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1472 3 2 641 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1472 3 2 641 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - 195 - - 100 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1549 3 2 675 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Mnor1 658 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 - 0.005 - - 0.01 Conflicting Flow All 676 0 0 1552 0 0 1893 2231 776 1455 2232 338 Stage - - - - - - 1551 1551 - 680 680 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 342 680 - 775 1552 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 911 - - 423 - - 43 42 340 91 42 658 Stage 1 - - - - - - 119 173 - 407 449 - Stage 2 - - - - - 646 449 - 357 173 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 911 - 423 - - 43 42 340 91 42 658 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 101 129 - 214 128 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 119 173 - 407 447 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 642 447 - 357 173 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 18.2 HCM LOS A C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) - - 911 - - 423 - - 214 658 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - 0.005 - - 0.01 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 0 - - 13.6 - - 22 10.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A - - B - - C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Existing - PM Appendix F Trip Generation Sheets, Internal Capture and Pass -By Rates Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban NurnberofStudies- 29 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units, 168 Directional Distribution: 5011/o entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 7,32 X45-1097 1 31 Data Plot and Equation 5.000 4,000 C W 3,000 CL 2,000 1,000 0 X X X X X X IX XY 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban NurnberofStudies' 42 Avg, NUrn. of Dwelling Units. 199 Directional Distribution: 2311/c, entering, 77% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 04G 018-074 012 Data Plot and Equation 300 X 200 X X X 100 X X X X X X X X X , X, X 00 200 400 600 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies, 50 Avg, Num. of Dwelling Units. 187 Directional Distribution: 631/o entering, 37% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 056 0 18- 1 25 0't6 Data Plot and Equation 500 400 X C 300 fes, 200 X X XX X_ X X X X X X4%# X ol�e��X 0 200 4GO 600 Shopping Center Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 100USq FtGLA On a: Weekday Sefting8'ocabon: GanemdUrban0Suburban Number ofStudies: 147 1000Sq� Ft. GLA, 453 Directional Distribution: 5O%entering, 5O%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 188MSq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range o|Rates 377s 7.42-20/9816 41 Data Plot and Equation /000 Standard Deviation x= 1mmSq. Ft. GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=oamLo(x)*s.m7 R'= 0.76 x Xy, xx x x X, * ��r?�*x x x x x XX X x x 0 0 500 1.000 1,500 x= 1mmSq. Ft. GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=oamLo(x)*s.m7 R'= 0.76 Shopping Center Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000Sq. Ft. GLA Ono: VVeekday, Peak Hour nrAdjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7and Ba.m. Setting/Location: Genera|Urban/Suburban Number ofStudies: 84 1OOOSq�Ft. GLA: 351 Directional Distribution: S296entering. 381Aexiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1OOOSq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range ofRates Standard Deviation 094 O18'2374 887 Data Plot and Equation � `mm � + " + mm ~' ' ' ' ' ' ' x ' ' ' - x ^ x Ix XV1, xx x x sm Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: r=u.5o(X)+1mJu `mm 1,500 - - - - Average Rate Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Ona: VVaekday, Peak Hour o[Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4and Gp.m. Setting/Location: Genena|Urban/Suburban Number oyStudias: 251 1000 Sq. FLGL8� 327 DiredioneiDistribubon: 48%entering, 5296exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 100USq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range u(Rates Standard Deviation 3811 0/4 1869 204 Data Plot and Equation � � CL � ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ^ ' ' ' ' ~ ^ ' ' ' ' x � � . � Iy � x X xj� x ..��x V . x x x X x~1mmSq. Ft. GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - Average Rate «� Internal Capture PM Peak Hour Source: ITE's Trip Generation Handbook 3'd Edition, 2017 Project: Skyway Townhomes - Sanford, FL Table 6.1: IC% _ 1% Demand=1 0 Controlling=0 Table 6.2: Demand= IC% = 17% Table 6.2: 2%= IC% 0 = Demand �= Controlling Table 6.1: = Demand F;W1= IC% Land Use A - Townhomes ITE Code 220 Entries from Outside Exits to Outside Total External Trips Generated Total Trips (E+I) Total Internal External Enter 9 0 9 Exit 32 0 32 Total 41 0 41 % 100% 0% 100% Table 6.1: IC% _ 1% Demand=1 0 Controlling=0 Table 6.2: Demand= IC% = 17% Table 6.2: 2%= IC% 0 = Demand �= Controlling Table 6.1: = Demand F;W1= IC% Total Land Use B - Retail ITE Code820 Entries from Outside Exits to Outside Total External Trips Generated Total Trips (E+I) Land Use Land Use A B Total Total Intrenal External Enter 4 0 4 Exit 3 0 3 Total 7 0 7 % 100% 0/0 100% Total Internal Capture Entries from Outside Exits to Outside Total External Trips Generated Total Trips (E+I) Land Use Land Use A B Total _ 9 4 13 32 3 35 41 7 48 I.C. Rate = 1 0.00/o 41 7 48 Internal Capture PM Peak Hour Source: ITE's Trip Generation Handbook 3d Edition, 2017 Project: Sipes Avenue Townhomes - Sanford, FL Table 6.1: IC% _ 42% Demand=l 8 Controlling=� Table 6.2: Demand= IC% _ Table 6.2: 46% = IC% 15 = Demand 10 = Controlling Table 6.1: P260/ =Demand a = IC% Land Use A - Townhomes ITE Code 220 Entries from Outside Exits to Outside Total External Trips Generated Total Trips (E+I) Total Internal _ External Enter 32 10 22 Exit 19 4 15 Total 51 14 37 /0 100% 27% 73% Table 6.1: IC% _ 42% Demand=l 8 Controlling=� Table 6.2: Demand= IC% _ Table 6.2: 46% = IC% 15 = Demand 10 = Controlling Table 6.1: P260/ =Demand a = IC% Total Land Use B - Retail ITE Code 820 Entries from Outside Exits to Outside Total External Trips Generated Total Trips (E+I) Land Use Land Use A B Total Total]Internal External Enter 4 32 Exit 10 30 Total 14 62%% 1$% % Total Internal Capture Entries from Outside Exits to Outside Total External Trips Generated Total Trips (E+I) Land Use Land Use A B Total 22 32 54 15 30 45 37 62 99 I.C. Rate = 22.0% 51 76 127 Table E.9 (Cont'd) Pass -By and Nan -Pass -By Trips Weekday, PM Peak Period Land Use Code 820—Shopping Center rxY, qj tC Ax16t+ 9UkVEYU TE IFft�FNtl�W S� ttPAEPEFtfyCr xH w*N Prtirr A vEERTrD1Err71Ai A pLIkML � Pd EF G{ S F £ � GP 911P1'~rt3 VJI-F,yLt}AV 4A1'* Y',RF PASS Ily PF..FrPC ki(yh1FY Z4.MUI off I I 1W, 1, ain7 4 I 2:9 4 q 1Y 9,7 r1a klYmmnU k,yut Y7i .lith/hN .. IlI5 (fii e14b-&flOp A..4G 1(iP C7vnnn I nt 6 N3 J iy 17 9 111 4.' O- C p Zl f t 74 �., 40 - L _ � .._ � ..._ 34 0_ VI GrCnCi, IJV � Jun[ t$t8fi 1"R � 4W-fi 011 Pm ,_. 5 �._...._ C2 ...._. .. _ G2 I Pa'l, i. A 1 1CPM ..,_t 4. O- SOP ... 2 217 f � I 141- GM1Ar ISrnv.n .._ II j .... ,s. -,P r4Y Yn tki94 f ?E; 4114)-{%()111. ,.f Tf -- 71 7.IMf eat fill" IW18 ( 117 41111*0 0t7 (Y ill 0 2 it I 9—frit- FI Cl 01J7 I I1 4{717-1 7 P a 9 n] t 7 - 42 25 KImiCY l�nm anO . t4>.. 1 eE r t.Ua11 ha I,,,, 4F JuNJ i18X 411 1vNa-d Or7pn R A"":n 11 Not. is%NQf .i .� ... ,. 4U4:WG4i rvp.., ....._. :i4 MI PA lSC, 14n n W{Y1 hr L) hl n -rm _ tlClf_ --'Ithi irn:••.tt I'v r'n �t1v`r tbtid$.1 4Ur••.. :4 .. 7k3 . fY (I ._ }-1115pm ... .._ if Cql -P.px llk R FI—old" 12l;4mi 4 NJ U! 144r 191111119 J,1N 4n i 4 rX)4, (1G R l (9C4? F r b :..,....-..._........ _ . .. ..._.. _.-„..., r can los 17, !.loco iderinn EI { ,.l l•r ivlyrylil - A M-6 0Q, Pn 41 I - I 57 .. 4tl pyx! 11 Mahn t hl%8G"J A(qS ._1 7 MJifY ovt+ t A t ,, 19VA'ju ... 4 V.,4; 6U P m •... dm ._ 49 f - ZG UYtJ Ntrrx.4l r z A d7 7 8i fitl Crry FI !nle'7iH ASN1 4 00c In 50 ( E 009 ,r a 1r ... .�... ` _ l h , Rod” 0, A t S Ali," L1t' 1 afgn 1 4JQ- 7(7P1 70 ___ ..._._ ..... ... .._ _..._ ._._ .,,_. _, .., _,._... , ...... ............... t i.;Wf [7uytrtsirwn PA... hmi.,v 198.1 f5 4TN)-1 OU P n� ., -. I &': _... ( 29,';uj 13 t1 -itnU «. 1 A— Ii'domI „ IrR'Nh t".z Alldn d ~ rl iwP. PA V:mi+ar tnflII�f,Ct ._. 4ryps fit)Pn }z _ ._. fa7 I ._. 25 OGD ""alfa, __ Iv 144 lir1t1Oun i." NJ rl. bNM17111 ._. 4q(y_E ¢fp Pno 21" ._ 847 (4 OClY lr 205 f0iiwwd DAy FI f. ntt t ill—l'. - 4 PU df 00 p {n 55 I - - ( A$ . - 6? Val Table E,9 (Cont'd) Pass -By and Non -Pass -By Trips Weekday, PM Peak Period Land Use Code 820—Shopping Center st2:7 f31A�._LL��XVJUhC`3tt7YY4'FP Ui�,U14Yi'E.tiVkE44:�~$MA;C.'Ef�Ut--TE�{�al ( IRIRAfY GVVEFIE)IijAL VtfAPAI��FIL WmfigE 2 �EfF -3kJiG�217 af ll 24: 'J.wu rn Cruvr..' tY+nt. tVlkl.lel- _. 4177-4, D) P n� 37 _ ._ ti3 _ 2i5 Wd htr! f r^Cm PA AsP,.ci alas ......297 . ... 'iyh,l,^aa111 WA -..brinly, iB2A.+kU ;O'U-+3 RtivPr J;f t>' L13 ow5 Ax oarir.,.. " 4 OMI Mp rn., 4a ... W ` 7.100 1.74!4 h"" P_ - , - +a . 370 .. - gh, PA, M, Ir0W+6U - » 4OJ-9 nJ Pfn 7 G1 �I 3J Utu wt6'w,k0 �Dmat,au, . nfi�nnU OR T S,r• 4 a- M P Olt 08 21, .., ISO .. • 1"Utl nn 1 C7ii r 915... 4 �.i-f� 00 P rti fir, _.. 28 6 INK) K11101101 And '.. 78() C';vl .tr Ibem,0,10- M7 11, 4;i,6A 4X,1 p.nt 20 31.) 41 1;45 - _ city 0 178 Efwdomf n An' t931, 1:42fWv '-O17pn, :I7 dttb RaY, n11 Appendix G OUATS Model Distribution Plots N �,__._.._.__....___..._._...__._._.__._..._.._....._...___ S s o�f J, \ \\ \M Y 0 Q H j o 10 10 o � 16 9 80 196 000;""' 78 78 78 ,fie ......_. t–� N ._,_........._...._,._____......_...____._______.___—___...._......._.._.__,_.._.._..._._._........__._._.—_...-_.___..._.._. I I 1 lane per direction 2 lanes per direction 3 lanes per direction eumom 4 lanes per direction comasm 5+ lanes per direction --- - Centroid connector — - --- --- 21077 Skyway Townhomes - Seminole Co. TAZ 255 - Sanford, Seminole County FL Project Distribution - OUATS 2040 CF2025 T:\AProjectFiles\2021\21077 Skyway Townhomes\Model\Model Files\HRLDXY_C25_ADJ.net Tue 18 May 2021 BwL�C-� I r�.r:;rr�°r��f W Fr'.xffi Nl[r7b6Hty t.:OWr LdLT-ILuk 21O77Skyway Tnwnhumoo-Seminole Co. TAZ255-Sanford, Seminole County FL Project Distribution 'OUATG2O4OCF2O25 TAAznojedFi|oo\2Oo1\21O77Skyway Townhumas\ModnNNodo|Fi|os\HRLOXY_C25—ADJoetTuo18May 2O21 (LicenSc�d toTr8lficand Vobi|ity COnsu|hsntS LLC) Appendix H Volume Projections and Vested Trip Calculations 21077 Skyway Townhomes Intersection Volumes (PRO r Hire e/ctian r yi rr C KIN/ #- r r� r, r / fB d rJr, k � Y �!, , r' l��II ILII II//lel/DII� Egon, / / l /xt %PB %PS El� rMONSOON�r /1f , /ii/,,/,/i ✓��/lir/ �,c //� rl �. 0 1.Vf, 0. 0 rc §-..kg'd%ProjEnt%ProjExI Project Total Formula 0 R 0 i.Co 0 0 0 EB T 585 1,06, 620 263 15 41 315 1 12 27 674 0 1294 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB T 0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 37 1.00 37 0 7 7 0 44 0 44 37+(7)=44 L 0 t-71 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 (1) NB T 36 tO=, 38 36 1 68 303 16 424 0 462 0 462 38+(424)=462 R 0 1 Ub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 12 td0 12 0 3 3 015 0 15 12+(3)=15 SB T 25 27 28 2 56 371 48 505 0 532 0 532 27+(505)=532 R 0 1113 0 0 0 0 0 30% 3 3 (3) r Hire e/ctian r yi rr C KIN/ #- r r� r, r / fB d rJr, k � Y �!, , r' l��II ILII II//lel/DII� Egon, / / l /xt %PB %PS El� aIl, /u,i 10 0 1.Vf, 0. 0 Vested Ent §-..kg'd%ProjEnt%ProjExI Project Total Formula 0 R 0 i.Co 0 0 0 0 0 5% 2 2 (2) L 0 i G", 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB T 0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 37 1.00 37 0 7 7 0 44 0 44 37+(7)=44 L 0 t-71 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 (1) NB T 36 tO=, 38 36 1 68 303 16 424 0 462 0 462 38+(424)=462 R 0 1 Ub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 12 td0 12 0 3 3 015 0 15 12+(3)=15 SB T 25 27 28 2 56 371 48 505 0 532 0 532 27+(505)=532 R 0 1113 0 0 0 0 0 30% 3 3 (3) - ----------- l wn , I 11 s°est / 0 0 0 r 0 30% r 10 EB T 0 1.Vf, 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 i.Co 0 0 0 0 0 5% 2 2 (2) L 0 i G", 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB T 0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 37 1.00 37 0 7 7 0 44 0 44 37+(7)=44 L 0 t-71 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 (1) NB T 36 tO=, 38 36 1 68 303 16 424 0 462 0 462 38+(424)=462 R 0 1 Ub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 12 td0 12 0 3 3 015 0 15 12+(3)=15 SB T 25 27 28 2 56 371 48 505 0 532 0 532 27+(505)=532 R 0 1113 0 0 0 0 0 30% 3 3 (3) Pass -By Enter out ,. Y.., fin" Y yrll // /l,.N 1. ✓ Ir. l 1 r / 1,.. JIJ ,/N�i,�fi// M1 / rl f, / I 1 / / / /. / /I. ,/! WBR & SBL from Trip Gen of 62 Homes Occupied in Parkview Place L 0 1.08 0 0 0 0 0 30% 10 10 (10) EB T 0 1.Vf, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 i.Co 0 0 0 0 0 5% 2 2 (2) L 0 i G", 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB T 0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 37 1.00 37 0 7 7 0 44 0 44 37+(7)=44 L 0 t-71 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 (1) NB T 36 tO=, 38 36 1 68 303 16 424 0 462 0 462 38+(424)=462 R 0 1 Ub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 12 td0 12 0 3 3 015 0 15 12+(3)=15 SB T 25 27 28 2 56 371 48 505 0 532 0 532 27+(505)=532 R 0 1113 0 0 0 0 0 30% 3 3 (3) Data provided by Sem/nole County Data from TmAlc MobllV Consultants, LLC 21077 Skyway Townhomes Intersection Volumes (PRO L 0 i lli> 0 0 46 9 0 0....----0 95 00 0 EB T 1383 1.05 1466 200 53 56 78 4 42 40 473 0 1939 80% 40 1979 1466+(473)+(40)=1979 R 7 1 b6 7 1 1451 5 6 0 13 0 13 7+(6)=13 L 10 i 06 11 4 6 20 5 15 0 26 5% 2 28 11+(15)+(2)=28 WB T 600 1.,,., 636 260 46 46 96 1 25 40 514 0 1150 80% 31 1181 636+(514)+(31)=1181 R 2 1 2 1 3 579 1 2 7 0 9 5% 2 11 2+(7)+(2)=11 L 6 ,, 6 0 879 614+(263)+(2)=879 4 4 0 10 010 6+(4)=10 NB T 0 �.0(1 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 (4) R 9 G6 10 0 25% 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 L 3 .M 3 0 3 5 1 3 12 0 15 5% 2 17 3+(12)+(2)=17 SB T 1 106 1 0 0 5 5 0 6 0 6 1+(5)=6 R 0 1 06 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT 0 ^, Cfii 0 0 46 9 40 95 -- 00 95 60% 23 118 (95)+(23)=118 L 8 1.u0 8 1 29 11 1 5 5 257 1 0 9 1732 1471 + (257) + (4) = 1732 0 9 8+(1)=9 EB T 1369 1.;.. 1451 200 5 4 5 214 0 1665 5% 2 1667 1451+(214)+(2)=1667 R 19 1.Of!. 20 3 3 41 83 5 45 180 0 200 25% T 12 212 20+ 180)+(12)=212 L 10 t.;):, 11 4 956 10% 35 9 2 9 59 0 70 5% 1 3 73 11+(59)+(3)=73 WB T 579 GG 614 252 6 1 1 5 263 0 877 5% f.Wn 2 879 614+(263)+(2)=879 R 6;n l 6 3 0 NB 3 0 9 0 0 9 6+(3)=9 L 14 '.. M, 15 20 3 37 96 2 27 185 0 200 25% 10 210 15+(185)+(10)=210 NB T 0 06 0 0 L 2 0 0 0 36 3 76 92 32 0 0 R 10 06 11 14 0 25 11 1 5 56 0 67 5% 2 69 11+(56)+(2)=69 L 26 0 G 28 26 tC), 1 26 0 54 0 0 54 28 + (26)= 54 SB T 0 1.,,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 19 190 20 19 12 19 0 39 0 39 20+(19)=39 EB T L 0 1 Ot, 0 0 0 0 _....... 00 1973 1479+(482)+(12)=1973 0 0 EB T 1389 1 0 1471 201 5 29 11 1 5 5 257 0 1726 10% 4 1732 1471 + (257) + (4) = 1732 0 R 3 ^, C, i, 3 0 WB T 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 L 2 01, 2 1 6 7 0 9 0 9 2+M=9 WB T 605 1.0p. 641 250 6 35 9 1 9 5 315 0 956 10% 5 961 641 + (315) + (5) = 961 NB T R 1 1 A 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 L 0 f.Wn 0 0 65% 25 0 0 0 0 0 NB T 0 t.CEi 0 0 SB T 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 i Cha 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 (4) 0 L 2 1 Ml 2 0 36 3 76 92 32 0 0 2 0 2 2 SB T 0 1 Ou 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 1 tC), 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Pass -By Enter Out 12 14 EB T 1395 r_.., 1479 201 54 54 83 5 45 40 482 0 1961 25% 12 1973 1479+(482)+(12)=1973 R 0 1. CQ; 0 0 0 12 12 0 65% 32 44 (12)+(32)=44 L 0 1 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB T 612 116 649 265 55 46 96 2 27 45 536 0 1185 5% 85% 35 1220 649 + (536) + (35) = 1220 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 _�„5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB T 0 ', 1!> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 0 65% 25 39 (14)+(25)=39 L 0 i.G;1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB T 0 i aii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 i 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 1 M, 0 0 0 0 0 30% 12 12 (12) -- __-- EB T 0 ',. CB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 f,j” 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 (2) L 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB T 0 tWi,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 24 5,M) 24 0 3 3 0 27 0 27 24+(3)=27 L 0 7.w, 0 0 0 0 0 5% 2 2 (2) NB T 26 0 28 28 3 62 107 54 254 0 282 0 282 28 + (254) = 282 R 0 tH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 40 t W 40 0 6 6 0 46 0 46 40+(6)=46 SB T 29 ',_ p6 31 36 3 76 92 32 239 0 270 0 270 31 + (239) = 270 R 0 torr 0 0 0 0 0 30% 15 15 (15) Data provided by Seminole County Data 7rom TraR/c Mobility Consultants, LLC Sipes Avenue Property AM Peak AC N Not to Scala. U gr V t- 231 2 C14 <- 3 L C- �3 E. Lake Mary Blvd 23 F> 4 -> 39 2 C) 12� Site <-5 L � 4 � Q Cs O E V t- 231 2 C14 <- 3 L C- �3 E. Lake Mary Blvd 23 F> 4 -> 39 2 C) 12� Site <-5 Kentucky Square AM Peak " <- 50 26 E. Lake Mary Blvd' 41 -> T r 4 � � 9 Site 30 W Kentucky Ave Site PM Peak 4I �I LO <- 45 35 d 56 ->T r 9fl- LO 5 �' Site 41 W Kentucky Ave ,Site E Kentucky Ave E Kentucky 4? Q 32 -> Q WRM f 26 E- 35 ,c N Not w surto Galileo School AM Peak r F 273 E. Lake Mary Blvd 315 -3 334 W Kentucky Ave �-- 37 E Kentucky Ave Site d C 0 L 0 E V 30 -> <— 37 AC N N.,W Parkview Place AM Peak ,Q N Not to &W. WMIM) �� �rr��a%�i�����%�� r Comfort Inn lc ANI Peak Na w S.I.N . W i � Appendix I Projected Conditions Analysis Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC 1: Sipes Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Lane Configurations ) 0 Minor! ) tT Minor2 - - 4 Conflicting Flow All 1902 *T+ 0 0 2322 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1294 11 9 1820 6 8 5 8 22 3 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1294 11 9 1820 6 8 5 8 22 3 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 -- - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 40 50 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1348 11 9 1896 6 8 5 8 23 3 0 Major/Minor Major! Major2 Minor! - 58 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 - - - 0.03 - Conflicting Flow All 1902 0 0 1359 0 0 2322 3274 680 2594 3276 951 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1354 1354 - 1917 1917 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 968 1920 - 677 1359 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 5.1 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.7 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 309 - - 310 - - 20 9 393 -12 9 260 Stage 1 - - - - - - 158 216 - 70 114 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 273 113 - 409 215 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 309 - - 310 - - 19 9 393 - 11 9 260 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 98 70 - 57 70 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 158 216 - 70 111 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 258 110 - 391 215 - Approach EB WB ; NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 41.2 110.2 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR 'WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 121 309 - - 310 - - 58 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.181 - - - 0.03 - - 0.449 HCM Control Delay (s) 41.2 0 - - 17 - - 110.2 HCM Lane LOS E A - - C - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0.1 - - 1.7 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Background - AM 1 Sipes Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd intersection Int Delay, oIveh 11 574 - - 274 ' ' yD HCMLane VKCRatio 0.325 ' ' - 0.098 - Conflicting Flow All 1207 O O 2034 O O 2683 3288 1017 2268 3291 604 Stage - - - - - - 2027 2027 ' 1257 1257 Traffic Vol, veh/h O 1989 13 28 1150 9 10 4 10 15 G O Future Vol, veh/h O 1839 13 28 1150 9 10 4 10 15 S O Conflicting Peds, #Ihr U O U O U O O O O O O O Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - ' None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 ' ' 280 ' ' ' Platoon blocked, Y6 ' ' ' ' VohinMedian Storage, # - U - - U - ' ~O 8 235 18 8 441 Gnsda'Y6 -0 - - ' ' - - O - - O ' ' O ' Peak Hour Factor 98 SH 88 98 SO SH 88 96 96 80 90 SG Heavy Vehicles, Y6 2 2 14 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtF|m* O 2020 14 37 1198 B 10 4 10 16 G 0 Capacity (veh/h) 77 574 - - 274 ' ' yD HCMLane VKCRatio 0.325 ' ' - 0.098 - Conflicting Flow All 1207 O O 2034 O O 2683 3288 1017 2268 3291 604 Stage - - - - - - 2027 2027 ' 1257 1257 - Stage ' - - - ' - 856 1201 ' 1012 2034 ' Chtiou|Hdvy 414 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6I4 6.84 7.54 8.54 8.94 Critical HdwvSto1 - - ' - ' - 6.54 5.54 ' 8.54 5.54 ' Critical HdwySto2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 8.54 5.54 ' Fo||nw'upHdwy 222 ' ' 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 PcdCap-1 Maneuver 574 - - 274 - - —10 8 235 22 9 441 Stage ' ' ' ' ' ' 59 100 - 181 241 ' Stage ' ' ' ' - - 421 240 - 258 98 ' Platoon blocked, Y6 ' ' ' ' MnvCop4Maneuver 574 - ' 274 ' ' ~O 8 235 18 8 441 MovCop-2Maneuver ' - - ' ' ' 48 88 - 97 52 - Stage - ' - - - - 58 100 - 181 217 ' Stage - - - - - - 369 218 ' 234 99 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCMControl Delay, o O 0.4 72.8 88.2 HCM LOS F F Capacity (veh/h) 77 574 - - 274 ' ' yD HCMLane VKCRatio 0.325 ' ' - 0.098 - - 028 HCMControl Delay kA 728 O - - 198 - - 88.2 HCMLane LOS F A ' ' C - - F HCMS5tbY6U|eOkmh\ 1.2 O - ' 0.8 - - 1 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077Skyway Townhomes 05N3/2021 Synchro,1OReport HCM 6th TWSC 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd intersection Int Delay, s/veh 309.2 Lane Configurations ) 0 Minorl Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 861 405 Future Vol, veh/h 80 861 405 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Storage Length 280 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 19 Mvmt Flow 84 906 426 Major/Minor ti� Major2 Minorl +T r Minor2 *T+ 0.288 79 1383 23 400 0 99 0 0 35 79 1383 23 400 0 99 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - - None - - None - - None 280 - - - - 175 - - - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 451 - - 469 - - -23 15 362 23 11 359 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 11 3 2 11 2 20 2 2 2 83 1456 24 421 0 104 0 0 37 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 469 - - 359 Minor2 6.478 0.288 Conflicting Flow All 1480 0 0 1332 0 0 2181 2933 666 2255 3134 740 Stage/ - - - - - - 1287 1287 - 1634 1634 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 894 1646 - 621 1500 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.32 - - 7.72 6.54 7.3 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.72 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.72 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.31 - - 3.61 4.02 3.5 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 451 - - 469 - - -23 15 362 23 11 359 Stage 1 - - - - - - -161 233 - 105 158 - Stage 2 - - - - - - -285 155 - 442 184 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 451 - - 469 - - -15 10 362 12 7 359 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - -65 35 - 57 43 - Stage 1 - - - - - - -131 190 - 85 130 - Stage 2 - - - - - - -210 128 - 256 150 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0.8 $ 2079.3 16.2 HCM LOS F C Minor Lane/MaiorMvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLnl Capacity (veh/h) 65 362 451 - - 469 - - 359 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 6.478 0.288 0.187 - - 0.177 - - 0.103 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 2589.2 18.9 14.8 - - 14.3 - - 16.2 HCM Lane LOS F C B - - B - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 47.8 1.2 0.7 - - 0.6 - - 0.3 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Background - AM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Int Delay, s/veh 161.7 Lane Configurations ) 0 M norl ) 0 Minor2 6.064 +T r 913 *T+ 0 0 2629 Traffic Vol, veh/h 104 1665 200 70 877 9 200 0 67 54 0 39 Future Vol, veh/h 104 1665 200 70 877 9 200 0 67 54 0 39 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - - 175 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 2 2 2 4 2 14 2 20 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 107 1716 206 72 904 9 206 0 69 56 0 40 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 M norl - 304 - - 79 Minor2 6.064 0.307 Conflicting Flow All 913 0 0 1922 0 0 2629 3090 961 2125 3189 457 Stage 1 - - - - - - 2033 2033 - 1053 1053 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 596 1057 - 1072 2136 - Critical Hdwy 4.36 - - 4.14 - - 7.78 6.54 7.3 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.78 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.78 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.33 - - 2.22 - - 3.64 4.02 3.5 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 677 - - 304 - - -10 12 225 -28 10 551 Stage 1 - - - - - - -51 99 - 242 301 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 429 300 - 235 88 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 677 - - 304 - - -7 8 225 -14 6 551 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - -34 49 - -49 2 - Stage 1 - - - - - - -43 83 - 204 230 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 304 229 - 137 74 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 1.5 $1887.3 263.6 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Maior,Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 34 225 677 - - 304 - - 79 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 6.064 0.307 0.158 - - 0.237 - - 1.214 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 2510.2 27.9 11.3 - - 20.5 - - 263.6 NCM Lane LOS F D B - - C - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 24.7 1.2 0.6 - - 0.9 - - 7.1 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Background - PM HCM 6th TWSC 3: Cameron Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations ) tl Minorl ) tT Minor2 0.021 T4 Conflicting Flow All 1543 T 0 0 1795 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 959 0 7 1466 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 959 0 7 1466 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - 195 - - 100 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 2 25 3 2 100 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1009 0 7 1543 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 560 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.021 - - Conflicting Flow All 1543 0 0 1009 0 0 1795 2566 505 2062 2566 772 Stage - - - - - - 1009 1009 - 1557 1557 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 786 1557 - 505 1009 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.6 - - 9.5 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 8.5 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 8.5 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.45 - - 4.5 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 426 - - 560 - - 18 26 512 32 26 342 Stage 1 - - - - - - 130 316 - 118 172 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 196 172 - 518 316 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 426 - - 560 - - 18 26 512 31 26 342 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 79 112 - 95 111 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 130 316 - 118 170 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 194 170 - 507 316 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 15.7 0 HCM LOS C A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 79 512 426 - - 560 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 0.021 - - - 0.013 - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 51.2 12.2 0 - - 11.5 - - 0 0 HCM Lane LOS F B A - - B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 0 - - 0 - - - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Background - AM HCM 6th TWSC 3: Cameron Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations ) tT Minorl ) tT+ Minor2 '� l Conflicting Flow All '� 1� 0 0 2342 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1728 3 9 956 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1728 3 9 956 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - 195 - - 100 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1819 3 9 1006 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 139 513 Minor2 - 0.015 - - Conflicting Flow All 1007 0 0 1822 0 0 2342 2846 911 1935 2847 504 Stage - - - - - - 1821 1821 - 1025 1025 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 521 1025 - 910 1822 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 684 - - 332 - - 19 17 277 40 17 513 Stage 1 - - - - - - 80 127 - 252 311 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 507 311 - 296 127 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 684 - - 332 - - 19 17 277 39 17 513 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 67 88 - 139 84 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 80 127 - 252 303 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 492 303 - 292 127 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 18.2 24.9 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) - 277 684 - - 332 - - 139 513 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.015 - - - 0.029 - - 0.015 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 18.2 0 - - 16.2 - - 31.3 12 HCM Lane LOS A C A - - C - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 0 - - 0.1 - - 0 0 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Background - PM HCM 6th TWSC 1: Sipes Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Lane Configurations ) +T Minorl Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1302 11 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1302 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Storage Length 280 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 40 Mvmt Flow 0 1356 11 Major/Minor tT.> Major2 Minorl *T+ HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 4� - 0.034 - 10 1847 8 8 5 8 23 3 0 10 1847 8 8 5 8 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - - None - - None - - None 280 - - - - - - - - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 301 - - 307 - - 19 8 391 -12 8 254 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 50 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 1924 8 8 5 8 24 3 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 55 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 - - - 0.034 - Conflicting Flow All 1932 0 0 1367 0 0 2346 3314 684 2629 3315 966 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1362 1362 - 1948 1948 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 984 1952 - 681 1367 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 5.1 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.7 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 301 - - 307 - - 19 8 391 -12 8 254 Stage 1 - - - - - - 156 214 - 66 110 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 267 109 - 407 213 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 301 - - 307 - - 18 8 391 - 11 8 254 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 96 67 - 54 67 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 156 214 - 66 106 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 251 105 - 389 213 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 42.3 122.2 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 118 301 - - 307 - - 55 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.185 - - - 0.034 - - 0.492 HCM Control Delay (s) 42.3 0 - - 17.1 - - 122.2 HCM Lane LOS E A - - C - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0.1 - - 1.9 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - AM HCM 6th TWSC 1: Sipes Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT MR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) tT 3369 ) 0 - - - - 4 2068 - 4 1294 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1979 13 28 1181 11 10 4 10 17 6 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1979 13 28 1181 11 10 4 10 17 6 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 14 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 2061 14 29 1230 11 10 4 10 18 6 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 74 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 - - - 0.11 - Conflicting Flow All 1241 0 0 2075 0 0 2744 3367 1038 2327 3369 621 Stage - - - - - - 2068 2068 - 1294 1294 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 676 1299 - 1033 2075 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 557 - - 264 - - -9 8 228 20 8 430 Stage 1 - - - - - - 56 95 - 172 231 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 409 230 - 249 94 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 557 - - 264 - - -7 7 228 --17 7 430 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 46 62 - 92 47 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 56 95 - 172 206 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 353 205 - 227 94 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 76.7 75.4 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/MaioriMvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT 'WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 74 557 - - 264 - - 74 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.338 - - - 0.11 - - 0.324 HCM Control Delay (s) 76.7 0 - - 20.3 - - 75.4 HCM Lane LOS F A - - C - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0 - - 0.4 - - 1.2 Nates -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - PM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 380.5 Lane Configurations ) tT+ Minorl Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 863 407 Future Vol, veh/h 100 863 407 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Storage Length 280 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 19 Mvmt Flow 105 908 428 Major/Minor 0 Major2 Minorl 4 r Minor2 +T+ 0.292 80 1384 23 409 0 100 0 0 35 80 1384 23 409 0 100 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop - - None - - None - - None 280 - - - - 175 - - - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 11 3 2 11 2 20 2 2 2 84 1457 24 431 0 105 0 0 37 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 467 - - 359 Minor2 7.688 0.292 Conflicting Flow All 1481 0 0 1336 0 0 2229 2981 668 2301 3183 741 Stage/ - - - - - - 1332 1332 - 1637 1637 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 897 1649 - 664 1546 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.32 - - 7.72 6.54 7.3 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.72 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.72 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.31 - - 3.61 4.02 3.5 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 450 - - 467 - - -21 14 361 21 10 359 Stage 1 - - - - - - -150 222 - 105 157 - Stage 2 - - - - - - -283 155 - 416 174 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 450 - - 467 - - -13 9 361 11 6 359 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - -56 19 - 52 35 - Stage 1 - - - - - - -115 170 - 81 129 - Stage 2 - - - - - - -208 127 - 226 133 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0.8 $ 2535.7 16.2 HCM LOS F C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt N8Ln1 NBLn2 EBL EBT 'EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLnl Capacity (veh/h) 56 361 450 - - 467 - - 359 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 7.688 0.292 0.234 - - 0.18 - - 0.103 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 3151 19 15.4 - - 14.4 - - 16.2 HCM Lane LOS F C C - - B - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 50 1.2 0.9 - - 0.7 - - 0.3 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - AM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 214 Lane Configurations ) 0 Minorl ) 0 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 7.465 *T r 0 0 1938 *T+ 3156 Traffic Vol, veh/h 127 1667 212 73 879 9 210 0 69 54 0 39 Future Vol, veh/h 127 1667 212 73 879 9 210 0 69 54 0 39 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - - - 175 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 2 2 2 4 2 14 2 20 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 131 1719 219 75 906 9 216 0 71 56 0 40 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 299 Minor2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 7.465 Conflicting Flow All 915 0 0 1938 0 0 2694 3156 969 2183 3261 458 Stage - - - - - - 2091 2091 - 1061 1061 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 603 1065 - 1122 2200 - Critical Hdwy 4.36 - - 4.14 - - 7.78 6.54 7.3 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.78 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.78 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.33 - - 2.22 - - 3.64 4.02 3.5 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 676 - - 299 - - -9 11 223 -26 9 550 Stage 1 - - - - - - -46 93 - 239 299 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 424 297 - 219 81 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 676 - - 299 - - -6 7 223 -12 5 550 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - -29 41 - -36 --10 - Stage 1 - - - - - - -37 75 - 193 224 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 294 222 - 120 65 - Approach EB WB - NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 1.6 $ 2397.1 $ 460.4 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLnl NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 29 223 676 - - 299 - - 59 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 7.465 0.319 0.194 - - 0.252 - - 1.625 HCM Control Delay (s) $ 3175.4 28.5 11.6 - - 21 - -$460.4 HCM Lane LOS F D B - - C - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 26.5 1.3 0.7 - - 1 - - 8.7 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - PM HCM 6th TWSC 3: Cameron Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations ) tT4 Minorl ) 0 Minor2 0.021 T+ Conflicting Flow All 1545 0 T 0 0 1800 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 962 0 7 1468 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 962 0 7 1468 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - 195 - - 100 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 6 2 25 3 2 100 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1013 0 7 1545 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 557 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.021 - - Conflicting Flow All 1545 0 0 1013 0 0 1800 2572 507 2066 2572 773 Stage - - - - - - 1013 1013 - 1559 1559 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 787 1559 - 507 1013 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.6 - - 9.5 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 8.5 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 8.5 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.45 - - 4.5 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 426 - - 557 - - 17 25 511 31 25 342 Stage - - - - - - 129 315 - 117 172 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 196 172 - 516 315 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 426 - - 557 - - 17 25 511 30 25 342 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 78 111 - 94 110 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 129 315 - 117 170 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 194 170 - 505 315 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 15.8 0 HCM LOS C A Minor Lane/Maor Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 78 511 426 - - 557 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 0.021 - - - 0.013 - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 51.8 12.2 0 - - 11.6 - - 0 0 HCM Lane LOS F B A - - B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 0 - - 0 - - - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - AM HCM 6th TWSC 3: Cameron Ave & E Lake Mary Blvd intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 AA ... ...........i rhi iPm+ rPS %,A in f tim+ to ll'ii't 'Kint klm1 Al-- , AW I 1'MI'YT nnn Lane Configurations ) tll, Minorl ) tT+ Minor2 - 0.015 T+ Conflicting Flow All 1013 T 0 0 2349 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1732 3 9 961 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1732 3 9 961 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 280 - - 280 - - 195 - - 100 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1823 3 9 1012 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl - 138 511 Minor2 - 0.015 - - Conflicting Flow All 1013 0 0 1826 0 0 2349 2856 913 1943 2857 507 Stage - - - - - - 1825 1825 - 1031 1031 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 524 1031 - 912 1826 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 680 - - 331 - - 19 17 276 39 17 511 Stage - - - - - - 80 127 - 249 309 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 504 309 - 295 126 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 680 - - 331 - - 19 17 276 38 17 511 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 67 88 - 138 83 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 80 127 - 249 301 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 489 301 - 290 126 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 18.2 25 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLnl SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) - 276 680 - - 331 - - 138 511 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.015 - - - 0.029 - - 0.015 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 18.2 0 - - 16.2 - - 31.5 12.1 HCM Lane LOS A C A - - C - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 0 - - 0.1 - - 0 0 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - PM HCM 6th TWSC 4: Project Access N & E Lake Mary Blvd Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 0 0.2 - - - tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1295 9 0 1926 0 23 Future Vol, veh/h 1295 9 0 1926 0 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1408 10 0 2093 0 25 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 709 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 377 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - - - - 377 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 15.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 377 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 15.2 - - - HCM Lane LOS C - - - HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - AM HCM 6th TWSC 4: Project Access N & E Lake Mary Blvd Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Lane Configurations 0 Minorl 0.204 - - - tt 0 - r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1973 44 0 1220 0 39 Future Vol, veh/h 1973 44 0 1220 0 39 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2145 48 0 1326 0 42 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl 0.204 - - - Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 1097 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - - - - - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.32 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 208 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - - - - 208 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 26.7 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLnl EBT EBRWBT Capacity (veh/h) 208 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.204 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 26.7 - - - HCM Lane LOS D - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - PM HCM 6th TWSC 5: Project Access S/Parkview Place & Skyway Dr Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR Wk WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL ' SBT SBR Lane Configurations 8.4 0 - chi A A - D + A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) *Ti - 0.2 0.3 + Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 0 2 0 0 44 1 462 0 15 532 3 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 2 0 0 44 1 462 0 15 532 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 2 0 0 48 1 502 0 16 578 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1140 1116 580 1117 1117 502 581 0 0 502 0 0 Stage 1 612 612 - 504 504 - - - - - - - Stage 2 528 504 - 613 613 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 178 208 514 185 207 569 993 - - 1062 - - Stage 1 480 484 - 550 541 - - - - - - - Stage 2 534 541 - 480 483 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 160 203 514 181 202 569 993 - - 1062 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 160 203 - 181 202 - - - - - - - Stage 1 480 473 - 549 540 - - - - - - - Stage 2 489 540 - 467 472 - - - - - - - Approach' EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 26.4 11.9 0 0.2 HCM LOS D B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBA NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 993 - - 181 569 1062 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.072 0.084 0.015 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 0 - 26.4 11.9 8.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - D B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.3 0 - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - AM HCM 6th TWSC 5: Project Access S/Parkview Place & Skyway Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Lane Configurations *T+ Minorl +14 Majorl 4 Conflicting Flow All 727 *T+ 301 Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 2 0 0 27 2 282 0 46 270 15 Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 2 0 0 27 2 282 0 46 270 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 0 2 0 0 29 2 307 0 50 293 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 727 712 301 713 720 307 309 0 0 307 0 0 Stage 1 401 401 - 311 311 - - - - - - - Stage 2 326 311 - 402 409 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 339 358 739 347 354 733 1252 - - 1254 - - Stage 1 626 601 - 699 658 - - - - - - - Stage 2 687 658 - 625 596 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 313 340 739 333 336 733 1252 - - 1254 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 313 340 - 333 336 - - - - - - - Stage 1 625 572 - 698 657 - - - - - - - Stage 2 658 657 - 593 567 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.1 10.1 0.1 1.1 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mivmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1252 - - 341 733 1254 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.045 0.04 0.04 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 16.1 10.1 8 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A - HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - PM HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Lane Configurations 0 tt� +T if +T+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 863 407 80 1384 23 409 0 100 0 0 35 Future Volume (vehlh) 100 863 407 80 1384 23 409 0 100 0 0 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1811 1618 1737 1856 1870 1737 1870 1604 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 105 908 394 84 1457 21 431 0 52 0 0 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 6 19 11 3 2 11 2 20 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 143 1192 513 159 1810 26 549 0 479 0 0 559 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 357 2342 1008 393 3558 51 1322 0 1359 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 105 665 637 84 721 757 431 0 52 0 0 33 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 357 1721 1630 393 1763 1846 1322 0 1359 0 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.5 26.8 27.3 16.7 29.4 29.5 26.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 44.0 26.8 27.3 44.0 29.4 29.5 27.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 143 875 829 159 897 939 549 0 479 0 0 559 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.53 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 143 875 829 159 897 939 605 0 534 0 0 623 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.1 17.0 17.1 35.7 17.7 17.7 27.5 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.5 3.9 4.4 3.2 5.4 5.2 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.9 10.6 10.3 1.8 11.1 11.6 8.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.6 20.9 21.5 38.9 23.0 22.9 33.7 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 LnGrp LOS E C C D C C C A B A A B Approach Vol, veh/h 1407 1562 483 33 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.9 23.8 32.1 18.6 Approach LOS C C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.5 50.0 36.5 50.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 34.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.3 46.0 3.2 46.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9 HCM 6th LOS C 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - AM - Mitigation HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Skyway Dr & E Lake Mary Blvd Lane Configurations Vi 0 997 Vi tT 477 221 *T if 94 4� 0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 127 1667 212 73 879 9 210 0 69 54 0 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 127 1667 212 73 879 9 210 0 69 54 0 39 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 0.37 No 0.97 0.73 No 0.44 0.56 No 0.06 0.44 No 0.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1811 1618 1737 1856 1870 1737 1870 1604 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 134 1755 189 77 925 6 221 0 20 57 0 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 6 19 11 3 2 11 2 20 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 364 1847 195 106 2112 14 392 0 342 142 18 54 Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 601 3140 332 211 3591 23 1178 0 1359 259 73 215 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 134 947 997 77 454 477 221 0 20 94 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 601 1721 1751 211 1763 1851 1178 0 1359 547 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.9 37.7 40.7 3.3 10.7 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.6 37.7 40.7 44.0 10.7 10.7 13.3 0.0 0.8 16.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.39 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 1012 1030 106 1037 1089 392 0 342 215 0 0 WC Ratio(X) 0.37 0.94 0.97 0.73 0.44 0.44 0.56 0.00 0.06 0.44 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 364 1012 1030 106 1037 1089 671 0 618 512 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.8 14.1 14.7 37.2 8.5 8.5 25.9 0.0 21.3 29.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 15.3 20.6 22.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.6 16.2 19.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.5 0.0 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.4 29.4 35.3 59.5 8.8 8.8 27.2 0.0 21.3 30.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C D E A A C A C C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 2078 1008 241 94 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.3 12.7 26.7 30.4 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.8 50.0 24.8 50.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 34.0 44.0 34.0 44.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 15.3 42.7 18.4 46.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 6th LOS C 21077 Skyway Townhomes 05/13/2021 Synchro 10 Report Projected - PM - Mitigation Appendix J Seminole County Internal Memorandum Signal Warrant Analysis J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION'- MEMORANDUM Date: December 12th, 2019 To: Anthony Nelson, PE, Deputy Public Works Director/Deputy County Engineer From: Vasu T. Persaud, PE, AICP, PTOE, Transportation Analyst Subject: E Lake Mary Boulevard & Skyway Drive Signal Warrant Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Public Works, Engineering Division, has prepared this memorandum to assess the future need for a signal at the E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive intersection as the area south of E Lake Mary Boulevard develops. Figure 1 provides an overview of the development projects underway or currently in the application process south of the E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive intersection. As shown, the Kentucky Square Planned Development (PD) project in the City of Sanford along with the approved Galileo School and proposed River Run Preserve development in unincorporated Seminole County will send traffic to the study intersection. Figure 1 "In -Progress" Development Projects 100 E 15t Street • Sanford, FL 32771 • TELEPHONE (407) 665-5674 • FAX (407) 665-5786 www.seminolecountyfl.gov E Lake Mary Blvd & Skyway Dr— Signal Warrant Study Seminole County Public Works - Engineering Division December 12, 2019 Page 2 of 7 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The development program for each of the "in -progress" projects as previously depicted are listed below. This development program information is based on the latest applications received. Skyway Development — 71 Single Family Units • Kentucky Square PD —116 Single Family Units • River Run Preserve — 94 Single Family Units • Galileo School — 766 students (Kindergarten through Grade 5) 3.0 TRIP GENERATION The trip generation analysis was conducted using information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Table 1 summarizes the resulting trip generation analysis and Attachment A provides the applicable ITE information sheets. As indicated, the "in -progress" development in the area south of the subject intersection is projected to generate 6,080 daily trips of which 887 and 485 will occur in the A.M. and P.M. peak hour, respectively. Table 1 Trip Generation Summary ITE Code Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Enter Exit Total Rate Enter Exit Total 210 Single Family (Skyway) 71 DUs 10.69 759 0.78 14 41 55 1.03 46 27 73 210 Single Family (Kentucky) 116 DUs 10.27 1,191 0.75 22 65 87 1.01 74 43 117 210 Single Family (River Run) 94 DUs 10.45 982 0.76 18 53 71 1.02 60 36 96 534 Private School 766 Student 4.11 3,148 0.88 371 303 674 0.26 92 107 199 Total -- -- 6,080 -- 425 462 887 -- 272 213 485 Note: 1. ITE equation defined rates used when the R -squared coefficient is greater than 0.7 2. ITE LUC 534 used so as to be consistent with the approved TIA for the Galileo Charter School 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC In order to assess the future need for a signal at the E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive intersection upon buildout of all the committed trips, it is necessary to estimate the hourly traffic, from the proposed developments, which will utilize the subject intersection. The estimation/projection was accomplished using the hourly traffic variation parameters documented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (see Attachment B) for Land Use Code 210 and 537 (as none provided for LUC 534). These hourly traffic variation parameters were applied to the total daily traffic as depicted in Table 2. It should be noted that for the purposes of this study it was assumed that 50% of the Kentucky Square daily traffic would utilize the subject intersection with the other 50% using other roadways, such as Sipes Boulevard, to E Lake Mary Blvd & Skyway Dr- Signal Warrant Study Seminole County Public Works - Engineering Division December 12, 2019 Page 3 of 7 access E Lake Mary Boulevard. In addition, using engineering judgement and knowledge of the roadway conditions in the area, 100% of the traffic from the Skyway, Galileo School and River Run Preserve development were assigned to the subject intersection. In addition to the northbound approach traffic, the east/west volume along E Lake Mary Boulevard was also documented. These volumes was obtained from the County's 2019 Roadway Traffic Count at station 152A, located 100 feet west of Skyway Drive (see Attachment C). These hourly traffic counts are also shown in Table 2. Table 2 Projected Twenty -Four Hour Traffic Time Period LUC 210 LUC 537 Total NB Approach Traffic E Lake Mary Blvd Hourly Traffic ITE Hourly %`s Hourly Traffic ITE Hourly %'s Hourly Traffic 12:00 AM 0.25 3 0.00 0 3 84 1:00 0.18 2 0.00 0 2 66 2:00 0.10 1 0.00 0 1 55 3:00 0.30 4 0.10 2 6 77 4:00 0.83 10 0.00 0 10 301 5:00 1.93 23 0.30 5 28 673 6:00 4.98 58 6.70 105 163 1373. 7:00 6.93 81 38.44 605 686 1779 8:00 5.48 64 4.18 66 130' 1660 9:00 4.30 50 1.38 22 72 1141 10:00 5.00 58 1.53 24 82 956 11:00 5.08 59 2.55 40 99 862 12:00 PM 5.75 67 2.65 42 109 981 1:00 6.13 72 1.55 24 96 991 2:00 6.80 79 14.25 224 303 1178 3:00 8.08 94 13.93 219 313 1412 4:00 8.93 104 8.65 136 240 ' 1707 5:00 8.40 98 2.50 39 137. 1925 6:00 6.38 75 0.93 15 90 1194 7:00 4.93 58 0.18 3 61 652 8:00 4.30 50 0.18 3 53 495 9:00 2.63 31 0.00 0 31 365 10:00 1.33 16 0.00 0 16 264 11:00 0.98 11 0.00 0 11 204 Total 100% 1,168 100% 1,574 2,742 20,395 Note: 1. Only 50% of the Kentucky Square traffic was assumed to utilize the subject intersection; 2. Highest eight hours highlighted in Orange; 3. 50% of ITE daily traffic calculates as northbound exit volumes on Skyway Drive. E Lake Mary Blvd & Skyway Dr— Signal Warrant Study Seminole County Public Works - Engineering Division December 12, 2019 Page 4 of 7 5.0 SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION Guidance provided in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Chapter 4C was used to assess the future need for a signal at the E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive intersection. The MUTCD provides nine (9) warrants as listed below: • Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3, Peak Hour • Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume • Warrant 5, School Crossing • Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System • Warrant 7, Crash Experience • Warrant 8, Roadway Network • Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing For the purposes of this analysis, Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume, Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant 3, Peak Hour were utilized to assess the need for a signal. Northbound Approach Geometry It should be noted that the northbound approach of Skyway Drive is being modified by the developer of the approved Galileo Charter School from a single lane approach to a left/thru share lane and a dedicated right -turn lane (See Figure 2). Consistent with guidance found in MUTCD, Section 4C.01.09, for purposes of the Signal Warrant Analysis the northbound approach of Skyway Drive was treated as a single lane approach for the following reasons: • During the highest hours of the day, the right turn lane will be blocked by the left/thru share lane queue • The percentage of traffic anticipated to turn right on from the northbound approach on Skyway Drive to E Lake Mary Boulevard is low in comparison to the left turn onto E Lake Mary Boulevard. For example, the River Run Preserve Traffic Impact Study report currently shows only 20% of the traffic assigned to the east on E Lake Mary Boulevard. ELekeManyBlvd&SkywayDr—SignaNamynStuoy Seminole County Public Works ' Engineering Division December Y2,20/Q Page 5of7 OIL 7 77 Mot A At .. ` Figure Northbound Approach Geometry Warrant 1, Ehqht-Hour Vehicular Volume As previously mentioned, VVornont 1. Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume was utilized to assessing the nand for a signal. This warrant ksfor application at locations where o large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing o tu*ffio control signal and/or where the traffic volume on a major roadway is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting roadway (may) suffer excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major roadway. As indicated in Table 3. the Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume is met for both the 1 A and 1 B condition for eight hours throughout the day. See Attachment D for the K4UTCDWarrant spreadsheet. Table Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume summary Time Period Highest Both Approach on Approaches on Minor Street Major Street Warrant IA Met? Warrant 1B Met? 6:00 1.63 1373 X X 8:00 130 1660 X X 12:00 109 981 X X 2:00 303 1178 X X 3:00 313 1412 X X 4:00 240 1707 X X 5:00 137 1925 X X Major Road Threshold: 420 630 Minor Road Threshold: 10S S3 Note: 70% volume threshold utilized as speed limit on E Lake Mary Blvd is >45mph. E Lake Mary Blvd & Skyway Dr— Signal Warrant Study Seminole County Public Works - Engineering Division December 12, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant is intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. As indicated in Figure 3, the volumes at the subject intersection meet the volume thresholds of this warrant (indicated as red dots on the graph). See Attachment D for the MUTCD Warrant spreadsheet. 700 a 600 Q500 W0 ii 400 CL `t W 300 0 200 x 100 0 Warrant 3, Peak Hour FIGURE 4C-1: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level 2 OR NJORE LANES & 2 OR 6fORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & LANa 1 LA14E & 1 LANE 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH r-igure s warrant z, your-riour vemcuiar volume The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. As indicated in Figure 4, the volumes threshold for the subject intersection during the A.M. peak period from 7:00 to 8:00 AM meet the volume threshold criteria (specifically, the volumes are beyond the graph range). See Attachment D for the MUTCD Warrant spreadsheet. 500 100 0 300 FIGURE 4C-4: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level (Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 Km/hr (40 mph) on Major Street) 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET .TOTAL Of BOTH APPROACHES .VPH Figure 4 Warrant 3, Peak Hour .7s Criteria Met As Peak Hour Volume Beyond Graph 1 OR MCEE t %EsII & 7 OR MORE LANES CR t.tORE -1 =5 & t LANE , 1 L:J+IE & t LA'C'E 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET .TOTAL Of BOTH APPROACHES .VPH Figure 4 Warrant 3, Peak Hour .7s Criteria Met As Peak Hour Volume Beyond Graph E Lake Mary Blvd & Skyway Dr— Signal Warrant Study Seminole County Public Works - Engineering Division December 12, 2019 Page 7 of 7 It should be noted that due to the presence School related traffic at the signal this warrant was considered applicable. 6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In summary, the development projects underway or currently in the application process in the area south of the E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive intersection will increase traffic at the subject intersection. Based on the analysis conducted and documented here -in, this additional traffic will meet Signal Warrant volume thresholds as specified in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Specifically, the following warrants will be met: • Warrant 1A -Minimum Vehicular Warrant • Warrant 1 B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic • Warrant 2, Four hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Warrant Therefore, based on the analysis documented here -in, a traffic signal is recommended at the E Lake Mary Boulevard and Skyway Drive intersection as the area develops. END Appendix K FDOT Right Turn Lane Guidelines Exhibit 44 Recommended Guidelines for Exclusive Right Turn Lanes to Unsignalized* Driveway Roadway Posted Speed Limit Number of Right Turns Per Hour 45 mph or less 80-125 (see note 1) Over 45 mph 35-55 (see note 2) *May not be appropriate for signalized locations where signal phasing plays an important role in determining the need for right turn lanes. 1. The lower threshold of 8o right turn vehicles per hour would be most used for higher volume (greater than 600 vehicles per hour, per lane in one direction on the major roadway) or two-lane roads where lateral movement is restricted. The 125 right turn vehicles per hour upper threshold would be most appropriate on lower volume roadways, multilane highways, or driveways with a large entry radius (50 feet or greater). 2. The lower threshold of 35 right turn vehicles per hour would be most appropriately used on higher volume two- lane roadways where lateral movement is restricted. The 55 right turn vehicles per hour upper threshold would be most appropriate on lower volume roadways, multilane highways, or driveways with large entry radius (50 feet or greater). Note: A posted speed limit of 45 mph may be used with these thresholds if the operating speeds are known to be over 45 mph during the time of peak right turn demand. Note on Traficprojections: Projecting turning volumes is, at best, a knowledgeable estimate. Keep this in mind especially if the projections of right turns are close to meeting the guidelines. In that case, consider requiring the turn lane. 09/26/08 56 Driveway Information Guide